Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
From the article, the US DOJ's FBI considers 46% of the households in TN to own firearms while TN State says 7% of the residents have handgun carry permits.
If this is accurate (and they are) most people in TN (and probably here) know several people with firearms, but don't know who they all are and most know someone with a handgun carry permit without knowing it.
Gun owners and handgun carry permit holders aren't different enough from other residents to raise alarm on the personal level (cue ironic banjo music). Why? Because gun owners aren't any different than your average run of the mill resident. Also, handgun permit holders who go through the trouble and expense of paying the state for the background check and permit (after paying for the state mandated day long course and test) are as a group are more law abiding than the average resident of the state (or they wouldn't pass the background check).
If you look at the DOJ statistics you find that some states with highly restrictive firearms laws and low firearms ownership rates have higher violent crime rates and firearms crime rates than some other states with high firearms ownership rates and minimal controls on firearms ownership while some other states with high ownership rates for firearms have higher firearms crime rates than the more restrictive states with lower ownership rates. Does this mean that higher ownership rates mean lower crime rates? No, what it means is that there's no simple correlation that equates firearms ownership restrictions and low ownership rates with low firearms crime rates and that means it isn't the rate or ease of ownership that impacts crime rates, but the much more complex issues that can't be oversimplified into gun=crimes.