An explanation of precautionary behavior may be essential for effective and safe crime prevention. We present and test a model presenting three independent but simultaneously conflated reasons affecting the likelihood of adopting precautions: precautionary engagement, precautionary preference (lethal or nonlethal), and precautionary difficulty. To explain engagement, we adapt concepts from choice models in classical deterrence as a heuristic applicable to any precaution. We also argue that preference relates to some quality of a specific class of precautions, arising from personal attributes that make the quality gratifying, and address precautionary difficulty statistically. Using a bifactor multilevel item response theory (IRT) regression framework and data from a nationally representative sample of 1,500 adults in the United States, we found that concepts of choice are successful at predicting the decision to adopt precautions generally, while personal attributes tended to be strongly associated with individuals’ preferences for lethal forms of self-protection.