
No, but I have several other breakdowns of accidental shootings.
I've never seen one that specifically provides the info that Davis insists
that he has, so I'd love to have a cite.


Wrong.  There's one gun design where that can happen, and it is
supposed to be carried with the hammer over an unloaded chamber.
(Cocking the gun turns the cylinder so that a loaded cylinder is under
the hammer.  In other words, it can be usefully carried in a safe
manner.)  Other handgun designs don't have that property; if their
trigger isn't pulled, the hammer can't hit the firing pin.


The breakdowns that I do have include the above category.  From them I
can safely say that if Davis is right in ALL of his claims, a large
negative number of people are killed by animals, because we know that
the number of killings by wackos is reasonably large and that the
number of accidents due to gun failures (which is a superset of the
described circumstance) is near zero.


Please do.  Include a cite for those of us who like looking at
context.  Make sure that your source excludes other types of
accidents and suicides that are misreported.  ("Gun cleaning
accident" is police-speak for "the family needs the insurance
money.")

-andy