Why Do Safety-Conscious Gun Owners Leave Firearms Unsecured?

Spend time around responsible gun owners and you will hear the rules repeated.

Keep your finger off the trigger. Watch your muzzle. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded. Know your target and what is beyond it.

These rules shape how people handle firearms, teach their children, and behave at the range. A lapse can stop a conversation or end a shooting session. There are teaching moments, firm corrections, and clear boundaries because everyone understands the consequences of getting it wrong.

So why would someone who takes those responsibilities seriously knowingly leave a firearm unsecured?

For some, it comes down to a simple concern: if I lock it up, can I get to it when I need it? Others live alone or with another adult and have decided an unlocked firearm makes sense for their home. If we want more people to secure their guns, we have to take those reasons seriously.

Keith Bombaugh understood that tension because he had experienced it himself.

His brother asked him to find a way to secure his firearm when Keith’s nephew visited his home. Keith wanted to prevent unauthorized access. He also wanted practical access to the firearm he kept for protection.

The options he explored left him dissatisfied. He understood why someone would rather leave a firearm unsecured than adopt a solution that did not meet their needs.

That experience became the reason he created B.O.S. Lock.

Gun owners want security without giving up quick access

For someone who owns a firearm for home defense, access is part of its purpose. A storage recommendation that appears to undermine access can feel like a conflict between two responsibilities: preventing unauthorized use and being prepared to protect the household.

That concern shows up in the research, too. In a 2024 study of more than 3,100 gun owners across nine states, the leading reason for not always using a gun safe was concern about getting to a firearm quickly in an emergency. That does not tell us how fast a particular safe opens. It tells us what owners are worried about—and what we need to address. Read the study in Preventive Medicine Reports.

Telling an owner to take safety seriously may miss the point. They may already believe immediate access is the safer choice for their circumstances.

Understanding that reasoning gives us somewhere useful to begin.

What if I live alone or with another adult?

Some owners reasonably ask: What if unauthorized access is not a concern in my home?

They may live alone or with another adult who understands firearms and shares the decision to keep one unlocked. There are no children, no outside visitors, and no disagreement about the arrangement.

Those circumstances matter. Two informed adults making a deliberate choice face a different household-access situation than parents with young children. A credible conversation should recognize that difference.

“Unlocked” also does not tell us everything about an owner’s precautions, handling practices, or home security.

Owners still have to consider theft, periods when the home is unoccupied, and changes in household circumstances. But acknowledging their reasoning should be more than a polite introduction to dismissing it. Their experience needs to inform the conversation.

In homes with children or visitors, instruction and firm boundaries remain important. Physical access control serves an additional purpose: providing protection when supervision is absent or someone fails to follow a rule.

We explore that balance in why teaching firearm safety needs to go hand in hand with securing firearms.

The appropriate plan depends on who could gain access, under what circumstances, and what risks the household needs to address.

What if the advice asks owners to give up what matters to them?

Through my work with Walk the Talk America, I have seen another side of this tension.

I have seen some researchers and healthcare professionals become frustrated when gun owners would not lock every firearm or store firearms separately from ammunition. What stood out to me was how often the conversation stopped at that frustration, instead of digging into why owners were saying no.

The research was telling us that owners worried about delayed access. Meanwhile, healthcare guidance often encouraged adding that delay: lock the firearm, unload it, and store ammunition separately. You can see that approach in guidance from Johns Hopkins and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

That is a difficult place to start. We are asking people to accept the very thing they are telling us makes them reluctant to secure their firearm.

There is an important reason for that delay. During a suicidal crisis, increasing time and distance from a firearm can provide an opportunity for the crisis to pass or for someone to intervene. An access plan may need to restrict even an otherwise authorized owner. A device that preserves that person’s rapid access does not, by itself, meet that need. VA’s explanation of time and space during a crisis.

That purpose deserves respect. So does the challenge of reaching an owner who rejects the recommendation and continues leaving a firearm unlocked.

I wanted to see us lean into that problem. What could we build that more owners would willingly use? How could we improve everyday firearm security while still recognizing when someone needs greater distance from a firearm?

The practical question is what improvement someone will adopt—and how to build from there.

Why B.O.S. Lock was created

When I saw what Keith was building, I recognized someone working on that very question.

Keith had encountered the same hesitation in his own home. Instead of accepting the available tradeoffs, he was building a new way to secure a firearm around the access concerns he understood firsthand.

That shared perspective is why I joined Keith as a co-founder of B.O.S. Lock.

Fusion is a firearm-mounted biometric safety device with an integrated light and green laser. On compatible firearms, it holds the slide to the rear and releases its retention arm after successful fingerprint authentication. It is designed to help restrict unauthorized operation while preserving practical access for an enrolled user.

It operates offline, with fingerprint data stored locally on the device. Proper compatibility, installation, maintenance, and familiarization remain essential. Learn about Fusion’s operation and intended use.

Owners should evaluate those responsibilities and limitations just as they would with any other security product. Many already have a quick-access safe or another method they trust. Others are still looking for something that meets their needs.

If you are considering Fusion, start by checking compatibility with your firearm.

B.O.S. Lock exists because Keith was one of those owners.

A commitment to safety worth building on

Responsible gun owners already understand checking equipment, maintaining discipline, and correcting a practice before something goes wrong. That is a strong foundation for discussing firearm security.

Progress depends on understanding what owners are trying to accomplish and giving them credible ways to do it. A recommendation needs a practical path to adoption. A product needs to earn trust through its operation and consistent use.

Keith understood the hesitation because he shared it. B.O.S. Lock grew from his effort to build a way of securing a firearm that he would trust and use in his own home.

Listening to gun owners helped define the problem. It continues to shape what we build.