None of this should be surprising and it is common sense. I'm sure if you measured injuries among driving enthusiasts that injuries due to driving would drop when there were car shows too.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
None of this should be surprising and it is common sense. I'm sure if you measured injuries among driving enthusiasts that injuries due to driving would drop when there were car shows too.
Interesting idea, but I don't think it would show a big effect. After all in the gun case the whole population was measured, where the daily gun users are a small minority.
Car driving on the other hand...
Also, to use the kitchen knife argument from above, I am sure knife injuries during work are higher per head for cooks then programmers, but per use lower for cooks then programmers.
Because there is indeed a training effect. Same goes for weapons. But even the best training cannot offset a ten thousand times higher usage.
But that is just my common sense and logic.
The point is, if a certain part of the population does anything with a danger level above 0 and then some event occurs that makes a significant part of that population do it less for a day or few then there will be less injuries due to whatever it is we are talking about. I don't know why that is news.
That effect not, but HOLY SHIT look at the fucking AMOUNT!!! 20% in the whole giant nation!
Statistically a NRA convention prevents several deaths!
hm... now I would like to know how much such a convention costs. If it is less then 9 million per death then it is a cost effective safety measure. Definitely better then anti-terror
https://steemit.com/politics/@lennstar/why-anti-terror-actually-kills-more-people-then-the-terror-attacks
But I guess the marginal utility factor is horrible here.
Ok, so the convention is 3 days long. In 2013, there were a total of 75,000 gun related injuries (including accidental deaths due to firearms). That amounts to 205 per day which amounts to 4 per state per day if they were all equal (which obviously they aren't but I'm just doing averages here). That means during an average 3 days, 12 people would be injured per state. Reducing that number by 20% means reducing it by 2.4. So a couple idiots from each state go to the NRA convention? I'm not sure what training has to do with this. Anybody can join the NRA. You don't have to own a gun and you certainly don't have to get training to join the NRA. You just have to pay whatever their fee is.
Let me quote my article here:
Their findings are astonishing: During NRA conventions, gun injuries drop by 20% nationwide and 63% in the state where the convention is.
Not 20% in one state, but 20% in the US and nearly two thirds in the state.
Now do you math again. And include the deaths.
The number I quoted included accidental deaths. I understood the 20% to be an average for the whole nation. 63% in one state would just mean less than 20% in other states so the numbers, as averages, are accurate.
Nationwide means that your 205/day x 3 days = 615 people get injured normally.
BUT the number of injuries drop by 20% nationswide - means for all of those on average.
Means you get 615*0.8 = 493 injuries or 122 less injuries (or 40 per day) because of the convention.
That 20% is national average. In the state with the convention, the numbers drop by 63%, while on the other side of the country e.g. only by 12%.
That is what I meant with rerun the numbers ;)
My math is right. You're just stating the same numbers in a different way. Don't know why you are worried that gun owners injure themselves and each other anyway (which is most of this would amount to). There are many dangerous activities in the world. I'm sure if you reduced the number of people doing them for a few days you would reduce the injuries due to those activities. That's just stating the obvious.
Yes, that is obvious. And your math is not right, the injuries are 50 times bigger.