First line of defense from what?
I have an interest in amateur astronomy, and years ago I would read the astronomy forums, but after a while, I noticed that most people were more interested in telescopy than astronomy. I mean, they just wanted to discuss and buy more telescopes, eyepieces, and equipment. Guns and gun forums are like that too. Most people are more interested in discussing and buying another gun, but they seem to try to justify their gun lust with a need for personal defense, vehicle defense, home defense, bear defense and anything else they can imagine. I can see some people have put a more rational analysis of home defense into their response than just what gun to acquire next, but if our consideration is really focused on lethal force responses, I think there's been too much assumption about the source of the threat.
We could go around the world with property risk analysis, but if we want to focus on grave threats to our persons, we shouldn't assume these just come from meth addicts that want to grab some of our stuff to sell for drug money or who've graduated to the armed robbery of cash off people. Based on what I read in the paper, you're much more likely to face a lethal threat from your girlfriend's estranged step-son from her last ex-husband's previous marriage. The problem isn't that he needs money, but that he's already got plenty of booze and dope, and doesn't have anywhere else to go. But just supposing that your own family is one of those seemingly unusual ones for whom dysfunction is foreign and domestic violence improbable. You might just as well consider the risk from political terrorists, acts of war, serial killers, acts of revenge and even strange conspiracies as probable as home-invasion burglary. I don't think we have the statistics for us to have any more certainty that burglary or robbery are more likely a motive for violence against us in our homes than those other things.
People shouldn't think they're less vulnerable to violence from a serial killer or someone seeking revenge (for a possibly irrational reason), because they live in the country, have a fence, and a dog. While those layers of security and situational awareness might be meaningful in attenuating some risks, they're irrelevant to others. While they might be a rational answer to a question about a "first line" of defense, we can't forget a volunteer armed force that suppresses foreign threats to our security, and a justice system consisting of law enforcement, courts and corrections that keeps many known threats incarcerated or under the threat of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. Nevertheless, the poll seems to be more about what to shop for than how to be prepared. Think about this though. The GSK/EAR was supposed to have entered unoccupied homes and unloaded firearms prior to his later home invasions, presumably to reduce his risk of being shot with them. Bear attacks aren't likely either, but it's better to be ready and not need to be than to need to be and not be ready, right?
