OldMarksman
Staff
A couple of recent threads have addressed the subjects of whether to keep a long arm chambered for home defense and whether to carry a firearm when at home. Part and parcel of each was whether to keep guns here or there unsecured.
So, how might one go about making informed decisions? Let's look at it from the standpoint of risk management.
In any formal risk management process, the first step is to identify the risks. The second is to evaluate them in terms of both likelihood and the severity of potential consequences. The third is to identify potential risk mitigation methods and to analyze them from the standpoints of effectiveness, cost, and the possible introduction of other risks. The fourth is to decide whether to accept the risks unmitigated or to mitigate the risks.
Let's start with identifying the risks attendant to keeping firearms in the home, whether said firearms are kept for protection or for other purposes. The first and most obvious risk is that of having someone abscond with the firearm(s), but if the firearm is loaded, a much more serious risk involves the possibility of having it fired by someone else unintentionally. Keeping the chamber empty may mitigate that risk slightly but incompletely, and it introduces other risks.
The likelihood of an accident will vary depending upon whether children or visitors or repairmen are present in the house. But whatever the likelihood, the severity of the potential consequences is extremely severe.
The obvious mitigation approach would be to keep firearms secured or attended at all times. I recommend that most people avoid keeping firearms, and particularly loaded firearms, unsecured or unattended. In some jurisdictions, it's the law.
Now let's turn to risks associated with using a firearm for home protection.
No, let's back up a moment first and consider the risk of having one or more violent criminal actors attack family members in the home in the first place.
From the standpoint of likelihood, that risk is remote, or perhaps even much less than remote. For reasons discussed in this forum on more than one occasion, it is probably the case that, unless one lives in a gated community, the likelihood is not really dependent on the neighborhood. But the potential consequences would be extremely severe. Most people would consider it prudent indeed to at least try to mitigate that risk.
There are several ways, none mutually exclusive.
The first falls under the general category of "hardening". Keeping the doors locked, having strong doors, putting thorny plants and river gravel around or under windows, having exterior lighting, installing an alarm system, and making sure that points of ingress are as visible to the street or to neighbors as possible are all good ideas. The list is not complete. But even if all of these approaches ere implemented, determined invaders would not be stopped.
By the way, "determined invaders" are not limited to people targeting a particular family for the express purpose of harming them. We know of enough cases of burglars coming in to take valuables and finding families at home to give the lie to that oft-repeated assertion.
At some point, the analysis will encompass the question of whether to add a firearm to the mitigation approaches. That brings into play several questions:
That takes us to the next level of risk management.
We have already discussed the safety and theft aspects. Now let's address effectiveness.
The first and most significant risk, I think, is that of not being able to access the firearm quickly enough to use it. Many people visualize responding to a "bump in the night", but many, if not most, violent crimes in the home occur during daylight hours. One reason for that may be that the perps are usually looking for homes that are likely to be unoccupied, but the reason doesn't matter.
Whether one could access a stored firearm in time to use it would likely depend upon floor layout; upon the physical condition of the defenders; and upon the number of people to be made safe. In our case, we realized several years ago that the gun in the bedroom would be useless to us unless an unlawful entry just happened to occur while we were in the bedroom. By the way, "in time to use it" would likely involve a matter of seconds (I have experienced the unpleasantness of unlawful entry by violent criminal actors--in a very good neighborhood).
That thought process led to our decision to carry at home. Had someone suggested the idea to me six years ago I would have thought it preposterous, but I really had not thought it through sufficiently.
It is potentially the most effective solution from the standpoint of access; it makes leaving the house while carrying automatic and it reduces gun handling; it keeps the firearm out of the hands of others; and for me, it is not uncomfortable.
Risk evaluation should not really stop there. What should one do about the potential for hearing damage and for temporary sensory impairment at what would be a very bad time? Where would the bullets or shot go other than into the target? How many shots may be needed? These may influence the kind of firearm to be selected or the tactics or even the location of bookcases and so forth. The basic analytical technique is the same: Identify the risks; evaluate the risks; identify potential mitigation techniques; and decide.
One should do exactly the same thing in deciding whether to keep one or more dogs and in selecting the breed.
And in deciding the kind of training to pursue.
Incidentally, I spent a considerable amount of time in risk management during my corporate days.
So, how might one go about making informed decisions? Let's look at it from the standpoint of risk management.
In any formal risk management process, the first step is to identify the risks. The second is to evaluate them in terms of both likelihood and the severity of potential consequences. The third is to identify potential risk mitigation methods and to analyze them from the standpoints of effectiveness, cost, and the possible introduction of other risks. The fourth is to decide whether to accept the risks unmitigated or to mitigate the risks.
Let's start with identifying the risks attendant to keeping firearms in the home, whether said firearms are kept for protection or for other purposes. The first and most obvious risk is that of having someone abscond with the firearm(s), but if the firearm is loaded, a much more serious risk involves the possibility of having it fired by someone else unintentionally. Keeping the chamber empty may mitigate that risk slightly but incompletely, and it introduces other risks.
The likelihood of an accident will vary depending upon whether children or visitors or repairmen are present in the house. But whatever the likelihood, the severity of the potential consequences is extremely severe.
The obvious mitigation approach would be to keep firearms secured or attended at all times. I recommend that most people avoid keeping firearms, and particularly loaded firearms, unsecured or unattended. In some jurisdictions, it's the law.
Now let's turn to risks associated with using a firearm for home protection.
No, let's back up a moment first and consider the risk of having one or more violent criminal actors attack family members in the home in the first place.
From the standpoint of likelihood, that risk is remote, or perhaps even much less than remote. For reasons discussed in this forum on more than one occasion, it is probably the case that, unless one lives in a gated community, the likelihood is not really dependent on the neighborhood. But the potential consequences would be extremely severe. Most people would consider it prudent indeed to at least try to mitigate that risk.
There are several ways, none mutually exclusive.
The first falls under the general category of "hardening". Keeping the doors locked, having strong doors, putting thorny plants and river gravel around or under windows, having exterior lighting, installing an alarm system, and making sure that points of ingress are as visible to the street or to neighbors as possible are all good ideas. The list is not complete. But even if all of these approaches ere implemented, determined invaders would not be stopped.
By the way, "determined invaders" are not limited to people targeting a particular family for the express purpose of harming them. We know of enough cases of burglars coming in to take valuables and finding families at home to give the lie to that oft-repeated assertion.
At some point, the analysis will encompass the question of whether to add a firearm to the mitigation approaches. That brings into play several questions:
- Long arm or handgun?
- Where and how to keep it (or them)?
- What kind?
- Loaded or unloaded?
That takes us to the next level of risk management.
We have already discussed the safety and theft aspects. Now let's address effectiveness.
The first and most significant risk, I think, is that of not being able to access the firearm quickly enough to use it. Many people visualize responding to a "bump in the night", but many, if not most, violent crimes in the home occur during daylight hours. One reason for that may be that the perps are usually looking for homes that are likely to be unoccupied, but the reason doesn't matter.
Whether one could access a stored firearm in time to use it would likely depend upon floor layout; upon the physical condition of the defenders; and upon the number of people to be made safe. In our case, we realized several years ago that the gun in the bedroom would be useless to us unless an unlawful entry just happened to occur while we were in the bedroom. By the way, "in time to use it" would likely involve a matter of seconds (I have experienced the unpleasantness of unlawful entry by violent criminal actors--in a very good neighborhood).
That thought process led to our decision to carry at home. Had someone suggested the idea to me six years ago I would have thought it preposterous, but I really had not thought it through sufficiently.
It is potentially the most effective solution from the standpoint of access; it makes leaving the house while carrying automatic and it reduces gun handling; it keeps the firearm out of the hands of others; and for me, it is not uncomfortable.
Risk evaluation should not really stop there. What should one do about the potential for hearing damage and for temporary sensory impairment at what would be a very bad time? Where would the bullets or shot go other than into the target? How many shots may be needed? These may influence the kind of firearm to be selected or the tactics or even the location of bookcases and so forth. The basic analytical technique is the same: Identify the risks; evaluate the risks; identify potential mitigation techniques; and decide.
One should do exactly the same thing in deciding whether to keep one or more dogs and in selecting the breed.
And in deciding the kind of training to pursue.
Incidentally, I spent a considerable amount of time in risk management during my corporate days.
