More and more it seems that when the guns are purchased legally the media want to make sure it is a headline on an article or 12. I wonder if they are doing this to say"Look, the gun laws we have don't work, they still get guns. We have to pass more laws to make gun ownership more restrictive. If for the safety of us all!!"
True. But there's legal, and then there's legal.
For example, the AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook shooting was
bought legally. By the shooter's mother. So it was her gun. Did she give her son permission to use it to shoot up a school? Oh, wait -- he murdered her. So "purchased legally" (by someone) does not equate to "obtained legally" (by the shooter).
Same thing with the fairly recent STEM High School shooting. There were two handguns used. They were stolen by one of the shooters from his parents. So, again ... purchased legally, yes. Obtained legally by the shooter, no. Stolen is stolen. I don't see that stealing a gun from a relative makes it any less a stolen gun than a stolen gun one goon buys from another goon on a street corner late at night.