IANAL, but it seems to be a weak case and is based on how the guns were marketed. I assume they would have to prove that Lanza was motivated by the ads, which s

IANAL, but it seems to be a weak case and is based on how the guns were marketed. I assume they would have to prove that Lanza was motivated by the ads, which seems unlikely since 1. he's dead and 2. I haven't seen gun ads outside of niche shooting magazines, etc. Also, the counter argument might be: are movie studios, music labels, video game manufacturers, etc. liable also because they glorify gun violence as a business model? That would be a far reaching consequence. Car ads show people driving cars pretty aggressively; would they now be liable for when people get in accidents due to driving aggressively?