"This is not litigation against dry cleaners or dishwasher repair people. This is litigation against an industry that makes products that kill people, but they don't ever want to be held liable."

By that logic, we should sue all the car manufacturers because they make "products that kill people, but they don't ever want to be held liable". Let's not forget the manufacturers of kitchen knives, swimming pools, ladders and baseball bats. Oh - we should sue the companies that manufacture copper wire, because it kills people who get electrocuted.

Well, the article did contain this inaccuracy:

"A gun crime trace means that at some point after a gun left the store it was used in a crime"

Oh, and this very questionable assertion:

"The investigators simulated 'straw purchases'"

I would say any reasonable reading of the events would conclude that they actually committed straw purchases.

Well, if the investigators only simulated making straw purchases, then doesn't it follow that the dealers only simulated making straw sales? Admittedly, I'm an economist rather than a lawyer, but from my perspective it seems that if there's a sale, then there ipso facto there's a purchase.

BTW, a gun trace might also mean that the gun was stolen or lost, then subsequently recovered, with absolutely no criminal activity by any legal owner at any stage.