That is a conclusion to which you could come if you look at an interesting study done by health policy expert Anupam Jena, MD, PhD of Harvard Medical School and economist Andrew Olenski of Columbia University.
The two scientists looked at the number of gun accidents at the date of NRA’s big convention and the numbers 3 weeks before and after those conventions.
Their findings are astonishing: During NRA conventions, gun injuries drop by 20% nationwide and 63% in the state where the convention is.
The scientists offer an explanation: During the conventions, the most enthusiastic gun users are gone to look at guns instead of shooting with them.
Additionally any events that include guns, like tournaments, are unlikely to be at the same date.
Since that also implies that the heavy gun users are responsible for the majority of gun related injuries (16’000 a year) and deaths (500 a year) instead of “untrained” persons, as the NRA always says, the NRA is – unsurprisingly – not amused.
In a statement to CNN, NRA's director of public affairs, Jennifer Baker, called the study “absurd.” She continued: "This study is another example of when data and numbers fly in the face of logic and common sense.”
Dear NRA. That may come as a surprise, but sometimes reality does act not in the way of common sense, especially if it is a very special sort of common sense like yours. However, reality does not err, so it must be the common sense that is wrong (as it is surprisingly often).
For the ones of us that have a different sort of common sense, we can rest assured that the numbers do not attack our view that the more you do with a gun, the more gun accidents happen, as in any other area of life too.
Source: arstechnica
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.
Thank you, I already started to wonder where the angry, triggered gun-nut reactions are!
Point 1: I (and the study) have talked about accidents. Not homicides, nowhere.
Point 2:
Kitchen knifes are not made to kill people.
I will accept this argument if you use your gun to chop up a meal of salad and butter your bread with it every day.
Point 3:
That is because everyone has one. Means if everyone has guns...
Point 4:
A) I don't think even the biggest NRA gun storage can prevent any burglar... but I guess you just miswrote here.
B) Yes, the criminals have a lower risk of getting shot. As have police btw.
And because the criminals don't need to fear to get shot, they also carry guns less often. A LOT less often. Like nearly never in countries with strict gun laws.
Means people getting burglarized in those countries are also in less danger then if they would have guns. Not to mention the little problem with "appropriate use of force" (which I admit has been thrown out of the window in the US).
What you think about those points?
I'll let the first 2 google hits answer, okay?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
The second link has all the data you need. If you look at comparable countries (wealth and general war status) you will see that my point holds valid, yours not.
Oh, I'll add this graph, hit number 8 or so.
As far as social statistics go, this is a fairly exact linear trend.
http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html
Intersting outliers: Mexico, with the drug war. Germany, with very strict gun laws. Background checks and likely more important storage - for example the rifle in your home must be in a locked placed and (I don't know the english words) unable to shoot without putting a thing in (and of course not loaded with ammo, too).
Chile I don't know anything about.