Professionals make enough mistakes with firearms, gunshows are a bad spot to be.
As someone who frequents gun shows you piqued my interest in determining how dangerous they really are. The numbers are hard to pin down. But I tried to be as conservative as possible using the available stats. So if these numbers are wrong, chances are they are incorrect in your favor.
The ATF stats state that there are approx 5000 gun shows per year and they generally have 2,500 to 15,000 [1] attendees. We could use the low estimate (2,500 * 5000) and it gives us 12,500,000 attendees. (many of these people probably go to multiple gun shows every year so this does not imply 12.5 M people went but some smaller number went to multiple shows).
Using the dailykos's stat stating that for three years there have been around 1 gun show accident per month gives us 12 per year. [2]
The chance the average person will be struck by lightening is 1 in 960,0000. [3]
The chance of dying in a fatal car accident in the US in a given year are 1 in 11,000 [4]
So, the chance of a gun show attendee who attends one show once per year getting shot (at a gun show) is actually 1,091 times smaller than the chance of dying in a car wreck in any given year. It's also less likely than being struck by lightening. It's important to not let media crazes influence your perceived risk of an event happening.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States...
[2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/2/19/1276171/-First-gun-s...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
(strikes have gone down in recent years: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml )
The gun show risk is far easier to control than driving risk and lightning exposure risk.
Avoiding gun shows for fear of getting shot is like avoiding skyscrapers because of a terrorist attack, avoiding commercial airlines out fear of a crash, or avoiding swimming in the ocean because of sharks. All of these are statistically irrational.
I am really just trying to get people to be honest with themselves here. The real reason they avoid gun shows is they simply don't like guns or the cultures that surround them. That is totally fine, more power to them. But stating the risk of being shot is at best a show of ignorance regarding the subject and at worst a canard to make their preference/bias/distaste seem more rational.
To now see that equated with 'avoiding gun shows for fear of getting shot' is utterly unfair.
The statistic being what they are I'm no more inclined to visit a gun show than I'm about to visit a church when there is a mass or to visit a convention on tattoos, I have zero connection to guns, religion or tattoos.
That said I do know how to shoot but feel that America's love affair with weapons isn't helping at all, fortunately there is an ocean between there and here.
Your statement which started this whole statistical discussion was:
"I'm not comfortable around a bunch of amateurs carrying and messing around with weapons. Professionals make enough mistakes with firearms, gunshows are a bad spot to be."
Had you said, "I just don't like guns", "I am not interested in guns", or "I can't stand the atmosphere/people/politics at gun shows or gun shops". That would have been the end of the discussion. That's an opinion you are of course free to have.
Since your statement implied you are not comfortable at gun shows because you perceive shows to be dangerous, I looked at the stats as generously as possible and determined the risk to be negligible.
Then in the comment directly above to which you just replied I said:
"I am really just trying to get people to be honest with themselves here. The real reason they avoid gun shows is they simply don't like guns or the cultures that surround them. That is totally fine, more power to them. But stating the risk of being shot is at best a show of ignorance regarding the subject and at worst a canard to make their preference/bias/distaste seem more rational."
In other words, I understand that you have no interest in going to a gun show because you are not interested in guns and that is totally fine. Which is why you should have just said that instead of lobbing that silly canard my way.
But it is bizarre for you to tell me that I was being unfair for directly addressing and then refuting the rationality of your stated reason for not feeling comfortable at gun shows.
The question was about the latter, not about the former.
If someone were to say they don't feel comfortable around Scottish people because they commit more crime. I'm sure you would (rightly) have an issue with that and agree that it is indefensible.
#1) We're talking about on a given year here. and all my stats revolve around the risk of an event happening for a person over the course of a year.
#2) Multiple visits increase the odds of being in an accident. because it's impossible to know how many people attended multiple shows. I am looking at attendees as an individual visit to a gun show. The risk factor showing the odds of being in an accident at a single visit to a single show are more meaningful anyhow.
If you go to one gun show in a given year your odds are around 1 in a million for being involved in an accident. If you go to two your odds jump to 2 in a million.
Get it?
Regardless of the stats, I'm still uncomfortable around amateurs with guns. Comfort and rationality are not always aligned.
I didn't really expect to change your view. Education, familiarity, and practice often dispel the sense of anxiety someone feels around something they are not comfortable with. Learning to drive a car is one example of this.
It's my hope that through reaching out to people who don't feel comfortable around guns and dispelling misconceptions in an even keeled way helps show that we aren't a bunch of reckless crazy rednecks engaging in sophistry to prove a point. I think it's important for everyone to reevaluate their assumptions regularly.
Guns are dangerous, But if you are following the rules[1], it's nearly impossible to have an accident. The vast majority of legal gun owners follow these rules.
[1] http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Catego...
Imagine having that conversation with someone who lost someone dear due to getting struck by lightning, and who is now demanding that we install lightning rods every twenty feet and legally mandate nonconductive clothing. Obviously you'd sympathize with them, but you can't base national policy on emotion. You have to look at the facts.
Value propositions are all ultimately rooted in emotional responses to propositions which cannot be objectively supported, and all policy is ultimately rooted in value propositions; you can't not base policy (national or otherwise) on emotion.
Regardless of that, some arguments are more rational/illogical than others.
As if the majority of the pro-gun ownership arguments aren't based on emotion.
People hunt (some for game, some for sport) and need guns. People get robbed and would like a gun to keep in the home for self-defense. Some people live in criminal ridden areas where being mugged is a relatively common occurrence, having a gun helps there too.
I guess you can't describe the 'real offensive' behavior after all.
It's one thing for me to say I don't like overt displays of racism and bigotry, or I get nervous around people carrying guns where Nazi "collectibles" are on display. It's another thing for me to try to ban a gun show or prevent people going because I'm uncomfortable with some aspect of it.
Some people don't like spiders. I get it, although they don't bother me. But is it my problem to deal with someone's fear of spiders? Of course I wouldn't shove a spider in their face, but am I responsible for their terror if they see a spider in my garage? I am responsible for my feelings and how I react to them. I don't hold gun owners or Klan members responsible for how they make me feel.
"... I get nervous around people carrying guns where Nazi "collectibles" are on display."
That is all I wanted to know. Thanks.