3 ms·
There are fewer manufacturers than retailers, and the manufacturers have more money. As a result, this is easier, and has a better potential payout.
by nickff 2y ago
There are fewer manufacturers than retailers, and the manufacturers have more money. As a result, this is easier, and has a better potential payout.
- brodouevencode 2y agoSo it's all about the money...
- Clubber 2y agoI think the objective is to sue the manufacturers out of business as a measure of gun control. Also money. With how corrupt Mexico is in regards to the cartels, they should be suing themselves. https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-01-25/alejandro-celorio-the-lawyer-leading-mexicos-lawsuit-against-us-gun-manufacturers-the-arms-industry-has-blood-on-its-hands.html https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-01-25/alejandr...
- sans_souse 2y agoare you just finally coming to realize this?
- brodouevencode 2y agoNot really, just want it on record.
- radicaldreamer 2y agoThey’re also licensed, required to keep copious paperwork for production details, and easy to find.
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago>this is easier >In a separate suit, they have accused five Arizona gun shops – many of which also appear in the hacked data obtained by USA TODAY, of selling guns that crossed the border and were used in crimes. They're doing both, likely this is the one they expect to win, and they're just playing up the other one for political points. Or hoping when they win the second, people think it was about the first, painting the gun manufacturers in a more negative light. They also may be going to the hailmary of essentially banning all guns in the U.S through bankrupting them, though this is even more ridiculous than trying to go after a gun company after a mass shooting. This is more like going after Ford because a dealer sold an f150 to someone who sold it to someone else who ran over a pedestrian.