Anybody who has studied westward expansion will help you get an accurate picture of the accidental woundings to Indian attack casualties. I would have to dig into my notes, but 1,200-1,500 to one is in the ball park. The example is people who did shoot themselves or others & has nothing to do with those who did not. That is a "what aboutery" fallacy.Rather, that was not what it was really like unless the figures were put in context of how many area settlers were instead quite competent with firearms for which no incident reports were made. Suppose there were 300 firearmport accidents reported at the Fort over five years. That sounds like a lot, yet what is that compared to, say, the 12,000 other residents of the area who had no accidents at all in that same time period, where competent use of a firearm instead saved people from going hungry or prevented injury, widowhood or abandoned children.
It seems to be a fad of late to disparage the firearms competency that commoners had before they enlisted, and of recruits after they enlisted. It denies the reality borne out in hundreds of County histories across the Country but particularly pioneer counties, that rural folks (most of the population in the Antebellum) pretty much had guns and knew how to use them.