9 ms·

I own a significant number of firearms. It isn't law but I recommend storing the ammunition in a second safe. I have multiple safes and, even without children i

by KGIII 9y ago

I own a significant number of firearms. It isn't law but I recommend storing the ammunition in a second safe. I have multiple safes and, even without children in the home, keep ammo and firearms securely stored separately. On this subject, I'd also seriously recommend that people take advantage of the holes on the bottom, or rear, of your safe. Those are so you can secure the safe to the building. In my case, all the safes are attached to bolts embedded in both the floor and the walls. The basement room walls are concrete block and the door to the room is made of steel. If you have a sizable collection, or own any firearms that require an NFA tax stamp, your insurance company will probably suggest such things. But, even if you just have a handgun or Gramp's old shotgun, I'd still recommend keeping ammo stored separately.

asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
> On this subject, I'd also seriously recommend that people take advantage of the holes on the bottom, or rear, of your safe. Those are so you can secure the safe to the building. In UK you are required to attach the safe to your building. Using those holes is not optional!
- KGIII 9y ago
  We have very different regulations here. A safe isn't even required. I own two firearms capable of fully automatic fire. The law doesn't even require I store them in a safe. I can strap one on and walk down the street, if I really wanted to. I should try to clarify that I am not a 'gun nut' but I am a 'firearm aficionado.' I belong to no militias, I don't plan on fighting the government, and I don't even belong to the NRA. I do hunt but mostly I just like to slaughter innocent bits of paper. If threatened, I'm almost certainly not going to shoot anyone. I am not interested in harming anyone. I was on a rifle and pistol team and later a Marine. I just like shooting stuff and I admire the engineering and art that is firearms. Sadly, I feel obligated to mention and clarify that. I find 'gun nuts' rather bothersome. They make it more difficult for me to be able to have rational discussions as they prejudice others against firearm ownership - and understandably so. If my only exposure were the reported violence in the news and 'gun nuts,' I'd want to ban them too. However, I'm a simple collector and much of my collection is because a friend of mine used to be a dealer and he keeps selling his collection to me, piece by piece. I'd rather they sit in my safes where I know they will be preserved. I have pieces I've never fired and never will. But, yeah... We don't actually even have to have them in a safe. I also live in a very, very rural area where they are tools and not toys. I don't think I know any local people who don't have a firearm. It's pretty different than what you're probably used to.
  - foreigner 9y ago
    > I should try to clarify that I am not a 'gun nut' but I am a 'firearm aficionado.' I am not a 'gun control nut', but I am a 'not getting shot aficionado.'
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I don't think anyone wants to be shot. Well, nobody sane wants to be shot. My politics lies on the err towards freedom side but I would absolutely not complain about reasonable regulations concerning firearm ownership. People seem to have forgotten that rights come with obligations. Because of this, it seems the law may need to be used as a tool to enforce those regulations. I don't have any complaints about a specific type of firearm being owned by a private person. In fact, I have no problem with the idea of making more modern fully automatic firearms available for ownership. However... People forget that their right to bear arms comes with an obligation to do so reasonably. I think it is reasonable for ownership of a firearm to require demonstrated proficiency in the use, care, maintanence, and safe storage - for each specific firearm. Not just for each type, but for each one owned. To own a firearm, you should be able to demonstrate safe use, knowledge about keeping it in functional condition, have a reasonable safe storage system, and you should be able to account for it at all times. This means mandatory notice of sale, including checks to ensure the buyer can lawfully posess a firearm, proper bills of sale, and mandated notification of loss, due to things like theft or accident. There should be an exception for antiques and firearms that are not safe to fire but kept for collection, things like that. It is notable that I live in a State that actually, a couple of years ago, removed the need for a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Yup... We straight up removed the requirement to have a permit. This hasn't resulted in a rise in firearm deaths or crimes involving firearms. This hasn't actually resulted in the predicted bloodbaths. Crime is still trending downwards and there has been no increase in violent crimes involving firearms. That's probably due to the mentality here. They are tools. We use them to hunt, protect our livestock, or to remove dangerous pests that are disease vectors. They aren't special, they are something you'll find in most homes. I don't expect you to change your views based on a forum post, but I do ask that you give serious thought to taking away liberties from lawful people because you're afraid. Fear is a powerful motivator, after all. If you're curious, I'd absolutely hand in my firearms if the government were rounding them up. I'd also help you load my stolen possessions instead of trying to harm you. I'm pretty much the definition of responsible firearm owner - as are the majority of firearm owners. It's not even about defense from tyranny or any of that crap. Nah... It's about enjoying them and about eating. I personally kill and process almost every bit of meat that I eat. I don't have to, but I appreciate doing so. I don't even always use a firearm to do so. This year, I'll harvest my deer during archery season. Given that I own an obscene number of acres, the odds of my harming you approach zero. If you take away someone else's rights, you'll have taken away mine. So, I ask that you do be careful when you consider what liberties are worth conceding before deciding what routes you support. Me? I support reasonable restrictions based on individual assessment and demonstrated competency. It will add to the expense, but I feel the additional expense is worth it in exchange for keeping my rights. Err... Sorry for the novella? I felt obligated to ensure I was clear. The whole debate is pretty muddy and it's difficult to find people who are reasonable. Most vocal people seem to be wildly at one end of the spectrum or the other and both sides appear to envision caricatures of the folks on the opposite side of the debate.
- stephenr 9y ago
  In South Australia it's either: attached to the building OR (my friend uses this option as he's in a rental property) if the safe is over a certain weight, it can be 'unattached', because it effectively becomes immovable anyway. Not sure about other AU states. Edit: clarified state.
- NightlyDev 9y ago
  I guess that's common most places, but the US have these great ideas when it comes to weapons, and it's working out so well for them /s

by KGIII 9y ago

asfdsfggtfd 9y ago

> On this subject, I'd also seriously recommend that people take advantage of the holes on the bottom, or rear, of your safe. Those are so you can secure the safe to the building. In UK you are required to attach the safe to your building. Using those holes is not optional!

KGIII 9y ago
We have very different regulations here. A safe isn't even required. I own two firearms capable of fully automatic fire. The law doesn't even require I store them in a safe. I can strap one on and walk down the street, if I really wanted to. I should try to clarify that I am not a 'gun nut' but I am a 'firearm aficionado.' I belong to no militias, I don't plan on fighting the government, and I don't even belong to the NRA. I do hunt but mostly I just like to slaughter innocent bits of paper. If threatened, I'm almost certainly not going to shoot anyone. I am not interested in harming anyone. I was on a rifle and pistol team and later a Marine. I just like shooting stuff and I admire the engineering and art that is firearms. Sadly, I feel obligated to mention and clarify that. I find 'gun nuts' rather bothersome. They make it more difficult for me to be able to have rational discussions as they prejudice others against firearm ownership - and understandably so. If my only exposure were the reported violence in the news and 'gun nuts,' I'd want to ban them too. However, I'm a simple collector and much of my collection is because a friend of mine used to be a dealer and he keeps selling his collection to me, piece by piece. I'd rather they sit in my safes where I know they will be preserved. I have pieces I've never fired and never will. But, yeah... We don't actually even have to have them in a safe. I also live in a very, very rural area where they are tools and not toys. I don't think I know any local people who don't have a firearm. It's pretty different than what you're probably used to.
- foreigner 9y ago
  > I should try to clarify that I am not a 'gun nut' but I am a 'firearm aficionado.' I am not a 'gun control nut', but I am a 'not getting shot aficionado.'
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I don't think anyone wants to be shot. Well, nobody sane wants to be shot. My politics lies on the err towards freedom side but I would absolutely not complain about reasonable regulations concerning firearm ownership. People seem to have forgotten that rights come with obligations. Because of this, it seems the law may need to be used as a tool to enforce those regulations. I don't have any complaints about a specific type of firearm being owned by a private person. In fact, I have no problem with the idea of making more modern fully automatic firearms available for ownership. However... People forget that their right to bear arms comes with an obligation to do so reasonably. I think it is reasonable for ownership of a firearm to require demonstrated proficiency in the use, care, maintanence, and safe storage - for each specific firearm. Not just for each type, but for each one owned. To own a firearm, you should be able to demonstrate safe use, knowledge about keeping it in functional condition, have a reasonable safe storage system, and you should be able to account for it at all times. This means mandatory notice of sale, including checks to ensure the buyer can lawfully posess a firearm, proper bills of sale, and mandated notification of loss, due to things like theft or accident. There should be an exception for antiques and firearms that are not safe to fire but kept for collection, things like that. It is notable that I live in a State that actually, a couple of years ago, removed the need for a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Yup... We straight up removed the requirement to have a permit. This hasn't resulted in a rise in firearm deaths or crimes involving firearms. This hasn't actually resulted in the predicted bloodbaths. Crime is still trending downwards and there has been no increase in violent crimes involving firearms. That's probably due to the mentality here. They are tools. We use them to hunt, protect our livestock, or to remove dangerous pests that are disease vectors. They aren't special, they are something you'll find in most homes. I don't expect you to change your views based on a forum post, but I do ask that you give serious thought to taking away liberties from lawful people because you're afraid. Fear is a powerful motivator, after all. If you're curious, I'd absolutely hand in my firearms if the government were rounding them up. I'd also help you load my stolen possessions instead of trying to harm you. I'm pretty much the definition of responsible firearm owner - as are the majority of firearm owners. It's not even about defense from tyranny or any of that crap. Nah... It's about enjoying them and about eating. I personally kill and process almost every bit of meat that I eat. I don't have to, but I appreciate doing so. I don't even always use a firearm to do so. This year, I'll harvest my deer during archery season. Given that I own an obscene number of acres, the odds of my harming you approach zero. If you take away someone else's rights, you'll have taken away mine. So, I ask that you do be careful when you consider what liberties are worth conceding before deciding what routes you support. Me? I support reasonable restrictions based on individual assessment and demonstrated competency. It will add to the expense, but I feel the additional expense is worth it in exchange for keeping my rights. Err... Sorry for the novella? I felt obligated to ensure I was clear. The whole debate is pretty muddy and it's difficult to find people who are reasonable. Most vocal people seem to be wildly at one end of the spectrum or the other and both sides appear to envision caricatures of the folks on the opposite side of the debate.
stephenr 9y ago
In South Australia it's either: attached to the building OR (my friend uses this option as he's in a rental property) if the safe is over a certain weight, it can be 'unattached', because it effectively becomes immovable anyway. Not sure about other AU states. Edit: clarified state.
NightlyDev 9y ago
I guess that's common most places, but the US have these great ideas when it comes to weapons, and it's working out so well for them /s