If you're asserting a causal connection between "guncontrol" states and accident rates, how do you explain the fact that California, Illinois, Utah, and Arizona are in the same tier? That's four anomalies right there, and California is a rather significant anomaly, considering its population and the aggressiveness of its gun control. The OP is about Arizona -- remember? "Oh if only they had California's gun laws, this kind of thing wouldn't happen." Except that it happens with comparable frequency in California, gun laws notwithstanding. Poof! There goes your premise.
Florida? Why did I mention "stand your ground"? To identify Florida as quite the opposite of a "guncontrol" state. I'm sure you would agree that "stand your ground" isn't the only thing that tags Florida as a gun-friendly state, but it's the best-known one. Clear? You didn't make any reference to what kind of gun control you are using for your designation of states. Don't blame me if your brush is too broad and your axe too dull.
As I already informed you, there is no correlation between being a "guncontrol state" and being a safety-oriented state. The only safe storage requirement in New York applies to a firearm owner sharing residence with a "prohibited person," one with a history of felony convictions or involuntary commitment for mental health: no provision for households with children. New York has no state-mandated training for CCW. Some counties require a basic NRA course, such as Home Firearms Safety, but nowhere is that codified in law. And as I have already pointed out, rabidly gun-friendly Arizona is demonstrably as safe as rabidly gun-unfriendly California.
When do we get to talk about accident rate per-household-with-firearm, as opposed to per-raw-population?
= new reply since forum marked as read