This is a good question I have pondered ever since I had my first child. I used to carry a Kahr K40 in a shoulder holster a lot. I was driving one day with the baby daughter in the back and I realized I had a loaded, chambered handgun aimed directly at my daughter. I practice a lot(or used to) and understand how incredibly remote the possibility of actually shooting it on accident was. But I still couldnt get over it. I got a ton of advice about it. Everything from dont chamber it(not an option) to carrying a revolver with the first hole empty(not a great option but actually not the worst.) I finally decided that the answer was a handgun with a decock and safety or a single action 1911.
The other problem in my brain grew as my kids got older. I am as safe as I can possibly be with my guns. I use safes, dont leave a bunch of loaded guns laying around, etc. But no matter how safe you are you cant completely eliminate the human element. Now my daughter is a big sister and can get just about anywhere in the house that is not behind a lock. And at four years old you cant teach her 100% to keep her hands off of something. And if she was determined and I slipped and left the Kahr, or Glock, on the counter she could fire it. It would be a complete accident of course but it woldnt matter. But a 1911, or a Beretta 92, USP Compact, etc. would probably be beyond her abilities even if she had five or ten minutes to play with it.
As much as you want to yell train train train, it doesnt matter. Home tragedies are realities. In fact it could be argued that the risk of a home accident can be greater than actually meeting a threat outside your home depending on where you lived. I would rather have to teach myself to manage the decock of a 92, even if it adds to the compexity or a possibly frightening and panicked situation, if it brought more safety to the human element at home.
Edit-Of course training matters. The point is you cannot 100% train away human element. You can only minimize it as much as you can. And how much you can depends entirely on the person.
The other problem in my brain grew as my kids got older. I am as safe as I can possibly be with my guns. I use safes, dont leave a bunch of loaded guns laying around, etc. But no matter how safe you are you cant completely eliminate the human element. Now my daughter is a big sister and can get just about anywhere in the house that is not behind a lock. And at four years old you cant teach her 100% to keep her hands off of something. And if she was determined and I slipped and left the Kahr, or Glock, on the counter she could fire it. It would be a complete accident of course but it woldnt matter. But a 1911, or a Beretta 92, USP Compact, etc. would probably be beyond her abilities even if she had five or ten minutes to play with it.
As much as you want to yell train train train, it doesnt matter. Home tragedies are realities. In fact it could be argued that the risk of a home accident can be greater than actually meeting a threat outside your home depending on where you lived. I would rather have to teach myself to manage the decock of a 92, even if it adds to the compexity or a possibly frightening and panicked situation, if it brought more safety to the human element at home.
Edit-Of course training matters. The point is you cannot 100% train away human element. You can only minimize it as much as you can. And how much you can depends entirely on the person.
Last edited: