Interesting (biased as usual, but not as badly as some) article.
I'm hoping what happens is that they get their day in court. Then, according to the legislation about suing gun manufacturers, they're made liable for ALL of the court costs. Including the lawyer firms involved, because they're the ones with money.
Then it gets appealed up to the supreme court, which tells the anti-gunners to suck it. And pay the extra court costs. Which aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy, and is attached to many of them not just corporately, but personally.
Indeed, the case itself is stupid because they don't have any proof the shooter(in this case) viewed any of the advertising, he stole the gun after murdering his mother(so at best you have an argument about why SHE bought it, presumably for legal purposes), etc...