If you want to get technical... Almost half of gun crimes are committed with a legally purchased weapon. The straw purchase tactic is a heavy favorite in the black market world, in which the guns are legally purchased, and then sold to illegal buyers.
http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/crime/htfd_courant_071606.asp
You really need to do more reseach. LISA LABELLA and RON PINCIARO who contributed to that article are rabid anti gun tree hugging liberals, who's research is suspect at best.
They are both members of Connecticut Against Gun Violence who last year lost a legal battle.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/co..._ruling_seen_as_having_little_effect_in_conn/
By Stephanie Reitz
Associated Press Writer
/ June 26, 2008
HARTFORD, Conn.—New England's prominent gun makers said Thursday's landmark Supreme Court ruling that affirms the right to keep guns at home for self-defense is a moral victory for their beleaguered industry and law-abiding gun owners.
The 5-4 ruling affirms gun ownership at home as an individual right for self-defense. It overturned a 32-year-old ban in the District of Columbia, letting governments continue to set rules for gun ownership but striking down outright prohibitions.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791.
"It really is a good day. This is just incredible," said Carlton Chen, a vice president and general counsel at Colt's Manufacturing Co. in West Hartford, where the 500-plus employees all received copies the court's decision Thursday.
"We've had so many attacks by anti-gun groups and laws that prevented law-abiding people from keeping guns and using them responsibly," Chen said. "We're elated -- we now have the grounds to challenge a number of these unfair laws."
Both Colt's and Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson -- which relies on the commercial market for 75 percent of its sales -- say they are happy the ruling's language seems so unequivocal.
"What we've experienced in the past is that everyone, depending on their feelings about the whole gun debate, had their opinion of what that is ... this really does now, very clearly, grant the right to law-abiding citizens who qualify to own a firearm," said Paul Pluff, a spokesman for Springfield-based Smith & Wesson.
Messages were left Thursday for Fairfield-based Sturm Ruger & Co. Inc.
The basic issue for the Supreme Court justices was whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Connecticut's constitution already refers to gun ownership as an individual right. State officials said Thursday they expect few changes, if any, as a result of the high court ruling.
In Massachusetts, however, a 1976 Supreme Judicial Court ruling describes gun ownership as "related to the common defense," wording which might be called into question by the new Supreme Court ruling, said James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Northboro, Mass.
"It's going to take some time to digest this," Wallace said of the lengthy court decision. "I'm very happy that it was written so clearly. Now the argument will be who gets to own a gun and who doesn't get to own a gun."
The ruling came as no surprise even to gun-control groups throughout the region.
"It clearly was a political decision based on the way the court is situated right now," said Ron Pinciaro, a director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.
