To See Gun Injury Drop, Hold an NRA Meeting

When the National Rifle Association holds its national convention, gun injuries drop 20 percent—perhaps because fewer gun owners are around their guns. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The annual meeting of the National Rifle Association is coming up in May. It's scheduled for Dallas. And if past events are any guide, gun injuries may actually go down in Texas, during the event.

"When a convention is held in a person's state, in that year, gun injuries fall." Anupam Jena, an economist and physician at Harvard Medical School.

Jena and his team discovered that surprising link by tracking visits to hospitals and emergency rooms for gun injuries during nine years' worth of NRA conventions. And they found the number of people hurt by guns dropped 20 percent during NRA meetings, compared to the same days of the week three weeks before and after the show.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


There's no definitive causal link here. But the researchers have a few ideas. First, could be, avid gun users are at the show, away from their guns, or shooting them in more supervised situations. And thus unable to injure themselves or others. Or: if some members of a regular shooting group are out of town, maybe the group postpones its meetup the week of the show. Thus avoiding accidents that otherwise might have occurred.

"It could also be the case that people who own venues where firearms might be used, like firing ranges or hunting grounds, may be likely to attend the conventions. And if those venues are closed, we might expect to see declines in gun use during that period as well."

The results are in the New England Journal of Medicine. [Anupam B. Jena and Andrew R. Olenski, Reduction in Firearm Injuries during NRA Annual Conventions]

The NRA didn't respond to a request for comment in time for this report, but Jena said their objection might be: Why would gun injuries decline 20 percent if only a few percent of gun owners actually make it to the show?

"I would assume the 2 percent of people who are gun owners who attend NRA conventions are probably much heavier users of firearms." And—assuming you believe guns are inherently unsafe—people who shoot their guns a lot might also be more prone to injury than those who keep them locked away all year. Which would mean that NRA conventions might protect some gun owners from themselves.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe