Life is risky. Everyday you are exposed to risk via the innate hazards in the world has to offer. It doesn’t matter whether it is navigating a flight of stairs, crossing the street, driving a car, flying in a plane, going for a swim, white water rafting, sky diving, cooking dinner or seeing a doctor. In everything you do you are faced with things that have the potential to cause harm and the likelihood that some of those things will cause harm. There is no choice when it comes to being exposed to risk in general. Rather, what you do get to choose is the level of risk you expose yourself to. With that said, before I get too much further, follow me after the jump where I will tell you a bit about myself and define some terms.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
I work as an HSE (Health, Safety and Environment) Advisor to the oil and gas industry. I have many hats, among those are being an auditor, a safety inspector and a trainer. My job is to help companies keep their people safe while they work, so I thought I would take my knowledge of hazards, safety and risk and see how the hazard management process might apply to guns and violence. Let's start off with some definitions.
Hazard – Something that has the potential to cause harm (e.g. ill health, injury, damage to property or the environment).
Threat - A condition or an activity which could cause the hazard to be uncontrollably released (also know as the “root cause”).
Incident – An unwanted event which has caused or could have caused harm.
Consequence – The negative and unwanted outcomes or impacts of an incident.
Risk - The probability that an undesired event will occur. Risk is a function of both the likelihood of an incident occurring and the severity of the consequences of the incident.
Prevention Controls – Controls in place to prevent an incident from occurring.
Mitigation Controls – Controls in place to minimize the severity of potential consequences and or to assist in regaining control and recovering from the incident.
ALARP – As Low As Reasonably Practicable.
In order to best manage the hazards and risks we are surrounded by it is helpful to know and understand the hazard management process. Hazard management comprised of three basic steps, identify the hazards, assess the risks and develop controls. Each of these steps can be broken down into more detailed components but for the purposes of this diary that is unnecessary.
The first step of hazard management is to identify the hazards involved with the activity to be undertaken. After the hazards have been identified the next step is to assess the risks associated with the activity, you then go on to developing the right controls to keep you safe and to help you recover in the event an incident occurs. As stated in the definitions a hazard is something that has the potential to cause harm. Hazards are everywhere present and come in all shapes and sizes.
An important item to keep in mind is that it is impossible to eliminate all hazards and it is just as impossible to eliminate all risk. Risk is a necessary thing. I am sure everyone has heard the adage nothing ventured (risked) nothing gained. Without risk there is no gain, no benefit, no profit. For example you assume risk every time you get in your car to go somewhere but that risk is offset by certain control measures and the benefit or profit you receive from driving in convenience and time saved. In fact driving is one of the most risky activities you engage in. Why? Because of the likelihood that you will be in an accident (over 6,000,000 accidents each year) and the severity (3,000,000 injured and 40,000 killed) of motor vehicle accidents. The more you drive the greater your exposure and the higher the likelihood is that you will be in an accident.
The point I am making is that virtually everything we do involves being exposed to some risk. This is especially important when it comes to significant levels of risk. It is also important to have a systematic method of assessing risk and a dispassionate approach to developing and implementing control measures aimed at actually lowering the risk.
The chart below is an example of what is called a Risk Matrix which is a tool to help identify the level of risk a particular activity exposes you to.
On the left side of the matrix you will find the categories of likelihood ranging from a rare likelihood that an incident will occur to an almost certain likelihood that an incident will occur. Across the top you have the categories of the impact / severity of the consequence with insignificant being the lowest and severe being the highest. It is important to note that anytime a risk assessment is done, it is done without considering the effect of control measures. Once the risk has been assessed you then develop and implement controls to lower the risk.
Now just because you can’t get rid of all hazards or the subsequent risk you are exposed to, does that mean you do nothing? No it doesn't, because it is possible to control the hazards and reduce your exposure to risk thereby leaving any residual risk as tolerable. This is done by developing and implementing systems of both preventative and mitigation controls. Some examples of preventative controls are; driver education, hunter safety, traffic signals, procedures on how to use a tool or do a job, built in safety features like a dead mans switch, recommended dosages on pharmaceuticals, warning signs and labels, having a firewall on your computer and guards on rotating machine parts. All of these controls are intended to prevent incidents from occurring. Mitigation controls are things like knowing CPR, wearing a motorcycle helmet and road leathers, wearing a seatbelt, emergency response plans, life preservers, airbags, security systems, smoke alarms and dialing 911 for the police, ambulance or fire departments. None of these control measures prevent incidents from occurring rather they take effect after and incident has occurred and they help minimize the severity of the consequences of the incident and enable you to recover.
Since you can’t reduce your exposure to risk down to zero, how close to zero can you get or should you get and still be able to benefit from the activity? This is where ALARP comes in. You want your exposure to risk to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable. I'll admit that ALARP is a bit of an abstract concept and cannot necessarily be expressed in absolute terms. What can be said is that ALARP has not been achieved if, for only a small incremental increase in cost and effort, risk could be appreciably reduced. If the cost is too high and the effort too great combined with no appreciable reduction in risk then there is no point in adding additional control measures.
So what does this have to do with guns or violence? Well, a gun fits the definition of a hazard. A gun is without a doubt “Something that has the potential to cause harm.” But then people are hazards as well, along with cars and knives and baseball or cricket bats and poisons and bathtubs and stairs and virtually everything else on the face of the planet other than a baby’s bottom. So how do you determine what a tolerable level of risk is when it comes to owning firearms? That's actually pretty easy to answer. If you feel the risk of personally owning a firearm is too high then don't own one. Guns are a hazard and they do increase the risk you are exposed to. But I propose that the gun does not increase risk nearly as much as the person holding it. That’s right; it’s the person, and a particular type of person in my opinion who increases the risk of a gun being discharged during the commission of a violent crime.
Take me for example; born in the southeast, raised in the mid-west and west, my Dad was a member of the IBEW and Mom a homemaker. Dad loved to fish and hunt and I went with him when I could. I joined the Army after high school, got out and went to college (and graduated even). I got married, had a couple of kids and thanks to friends I got jobs that have allowed me the opportunity to travel a bit. I don’t care for big city living, I prefer smaller towns in proximity to a city of 500,000 or less.
Apart from the traveling I have done I would consider myself an average guy who happens to own guns. Do I, your average kinda guy, pose a significant risk to others because I happen to own a firearm or even carry one? No I don’t and neither do the millions of other average kinda guys and gals out there that are not so different from me. Now how can I say that those millions of other people out there that own firearms pose no significant risk to anyone other than those who would attempt to harm them or their families? I can say it because if it was likely that people like me were to engage in murder and mayhem there would be millions of firearm murders each year instead of roughly 15,000. Hence people like me pose no threat to you and we don’t significantly increase your exposure to risk. Now does me owning a gun increase the risk that I and my family are exposed to? Yes it does, but I have assessed that risk, I have put in place what I feel are adequate preventative control measures and I am quite comfortable with the risk that remains.
The majority of persons involved in violent acts have a long criminal record and have had many prior contacts with the justice system. From JAMA;
One generally accepted policy to prevent firearm-related violence is to prohibit the purchase of guns by persons believed to be at high risk for future criminal activity. The Gun Control Act of 1968 outlaws the purchase and possession of firearms by felons, fugitives from justice, persons adjudicated to be mentally ill, and others. Under the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,5 background checks of prospective handgun purchasers are conducted nationwide. They identify approximately 70,000 prohibited persons each year, most of whom have been convicted of felonies.
If we are preventing 70,000 prohibited people a year from buying a handgun I would say we are doing a pretty good job.
We still seem to have a problem though. But do we have a problem with guns or do we have a problem with violence? I would say that we do not have a problem with guns; the millions upon millions of firearms that aren’t used in crimes is overwhelmingly sufficient proof of that. What we have is a problem with violence and those individuals who have a proclivity in perpetuating it (as an aside, the best indicator of future action is past behavior). What we need to do is address the root and underlying causes of violence not the tools used to commit that violence. This will be achieved by developing and implementing better preventative and mitigation controls aimed at stopping violence, rehabilitation, social services, education, poverty, income inequality, health and mental health while eliminating weak, inefficient or failed control measures.
There are other things that need to be taken into consideration, like how much risk are you as an individual willing to assume? How does the hazard management process fit with the activities we have a right to engage in? Should additional controls be put in place based on location? I don't have all the answers, I just feel this and many other issues will be best served and solved if they are addressed with a view to finding the most effective and least intrusive control measures possible. We can't have zero exposure to risk, but it can be reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable.