I think you've nailed it. For most situations, firearms are not particularly critical. In my experience, they are not very effective signalling devices. But they do give one a false sense of security.

Or, you can choose to assume death, and work backward to assess your risk from leading causes:

NIH leading causes of death

unintended incident death and suicide are much more common than homicide, suggesting that getting the guns out of the house might be the statistically wiser course.

I am a network security engineer, formerly a consultant and currently a sales engineer. For various reasons I can't be very specific, but there are occasions where my consulting clients used a rational risk assessment to avoid risks that could have been extremely injurious to their business and in at least one case probably saved lives. As a sales engineer I have helped customers in similar ways.

In the case of my wife, she was taking the emergency kit I built for her out of her car to save room for a Girl Scout camping trip she was leading. I prevailed upon her to keep it in the car...and she used the flashlight, first aid kit, matches, and multitool (that she told me about). It made a big difference for the Girl Scouts.

There is an extremely small, but still finite risk that you could be hit in the head and killed by a small meteorite. Years ago a woman in Alabama was injured by a meteorite after it came through the roof of her house. (See Sylacauga Meteorite.)

Since you believe in taking "any and all accomodations" to reduce risk, I assume you have installed a steel plate in your roof, and wear a balistic helmet at all times when you are out of doors?

So, AKSAR you fell into the trap. Congratulations.

Very wide questions, which can be applied in a lot of things.

Examples:
Firefighter hears a person trapped in a house fire. Decision is made to breach a wall using a chainsaw. Do you take the time to strap on your chainsaw chaps. If you do you are safer, but the time delay means that person might be dead when you reach him. Result: Person was saved, but the firefighter slipped and the chainsaw damaged his leg permenantly.

But anothter example could be drive or not to drive in bad wheather or anything else.

Risk assesments is a very inaccurate tool and there can be many pro's and con's to do or not to do something.

Assessing risk is really only part of the question. One also needs to consider the other side of the equation. We can choose to accept the risk if the potential reward is large enough. On the other hand, if we take steps to mitigate the risk, we may forgo the reward. Tjin's firefighter example illustrates this.

We can never eliminate all risk, but we can be thoughtful about how much risk we accept, and in what circumstances. SAR teams will often accept a somewhat higher risk if there is a chance of saving a life. If it is known in advance to be a body recovery mission, the level of acceptable risk is much lower.

USCG helicopter crews use a formal "GAR" (Geen, Amber, Red) risk assessment before launching a mission. A color (with associated number) is assigned each of several factors (weather, crew fatigue, etc). If the resulting score is within limits, they will launch. If the score is higher, they require approval from higher in the chain of command before launching. This doesn't eliminate risk, but it forces them to clearly think through and justify the risks before a mission. It reduces the tendency for highly motivated crews to take impulsive (but I'll advised) actions.

To add a couple of unnecessary cents to the discussion: We run a checklist just about every time we have to make anything other than an ordinary decision (should I get a drink of water or orange juice?). About the only purpose I would see for a chart, decision matrix, or whatever would be to study it so that you have something available in your mind that you can use or will subconsciously use when the moment arises.

We use the formalized method for project management. It works very well there as it helps to keep an eye on relevant risks and periodical assessment helps to detect negative development while there still is time to react. It helps to justify expenses and goals are achieved more easily.
Consequences and probabilities may shift over time. A formalized method and documentation helps to keep track of that. My preparation got better and cheaper by using risk assessment.

Look up the history of FMECA (Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis). Everything that has been cited here is an example of it. Like most preventative practices, it's not so much a history of successes, but of failures that either didn't happen or had minimal effect on the system.

As an example; My own disaster planning FMECA:

Probability of occurence:
Wildfire (moderate)
Flood (low)
Earthquake (moderate)
Crime (low)
Aviation accidents (low)
Ground vehice accidents (low)
Loss of utilities (moderate)

Severity of occurence:
Wildfire (high)
Flood (low)
Earthquake (moderate: based on shake damage maps, building construction, and local geology)
Crime (moderate. Mostly vehicle theft/burglaries)
Aviation accidents (low)
Ground vehicle accidents (low)
Loss of utilties (moderate)

Hazard (risk)index is a combination of Probability of Occurence and Severity of Occurence and determines where I allocate my resources (time, money, space, etc.).
Wildfire (high)
Flood (low)
Earthquake (moderate high)
Crime (moderate)
Aviation accidents (low)
Ground vehice accidents (low)
Loss of utilities (moderate high)

As you can see above, Wildfire is my primary concern, followed by earthquake and loss of utilities, and crime bringing up the back. If I lived out in the Cochella Valley or the Bay Area (Earthquakes), Oakland (Crime), or Mission Valley (Flooding) this would obviously change.