I am reiterating this in the most respectful way possible. Do not ascribe any nasty tone to this as I assure you there is none. Your statement which started th

I am reiterating this in the most respectful way possible. Do not ascribe any nasty tone to this as I assure you there is none. 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.