6 ms·

> 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 sa

> 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.
- icc97 9y ago
  As a Brit, I can't explain quite how foreign this logic is. It just blows my mind that people can think like this. Most American logic and way of life is remarkably similar. I feel like I understand the American way of life more than say Russian or Chinese. But guns are just such a fixation for the US more so than any other country.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Other than the hunting, it's a hobby. It is something that you can always practice and improve. At one point, I was enlisted in the Marines and seriously considered sniper school. Had I not been enlisted with the goal of paying for my education, I may have made that choice. I really enjoy the wanton slaughter of innocent bits of paper. If I'm feeling particularly cruel, I'll put a bunch of bits of paper out there and make them watch. I'm sure that makes me a monster to some people but I'm pretty harmless. Some people should not own firearms. That should be addressed. I don't think that should impact my liberties, however. If keeping my rights is a fixation, I'll wear that badge. Also, the US isn't that armed, compared to some other countries. We are fond of killing each other, so there's that. I suspect that is a bigger problem than the tool used to do it. If you ever get to this side of the pond, feel free to look me up. I'll teach you how to safely put rounds down range and on target. After that, it is all on you to improve your skill.
    - stephenr 9y ago
      > Also, the US isn't that armed, compared to some other countries. Wikipedia would disagree with you there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c... You don't sound like a "gun nut", but I have to question anyone who can't acknowledge that America is way more obsessed about owning guns than the rest of the planet.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        That's called lying with statistics. About 22% of the population owns a firearm. However, about 3% of us own 50% of the firearms. In other words, the number is accurate but misleading. Here is some recent data: https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/ https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-cha... My collection is a bit more than 300 individual, complete, firearms. Second, your link is only small arms in civilian hands and doesn't account for inaccurate reporting. Go to somewhere like, say, Somalia and I can assure you that you'll see the numbers are misleading. Then again, when a local militia counts as military, that tends to really make the whole civilian part moot. We are pretty obsessed. We aren't more obsessed than anywhere else on the planet. There are places on this planet where failure to own a firearm means you're a very, very vulnerable person. We can skip the histrionics and have a real conversation, if you'd like. Taking a simple statistic and extrapolating it to mean something quite different isn't very productive. Additionally, the data is from 2007 and has some noted caveats on your linked page. If you want a meaningful statistic, and I can't find one to cite, then the percentage of civilians who own firearms is much more significant than the total number. While I do own quite a few, I can't really effectively use more than one at a time. It isn't really like the movies. In the US, 22% of us own firearms. That is it. 3% of us own half of the firearms. I have enough for, oh, 300 people, give or take. Wikipedia and Google aren't that helpful, but I strongly suspect more than 1/5 the people in Somalia own firearms. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that they are far more likely to carry those firearms. I pick Somalia only to have a good example of why statistics are able to be horribly misleading. We do love our firearms, but I'm going to have to argue the bit about the 'rest of the planet.' I will happily concede that we have an unhealthy firearm culture. I will happily concede that we are obsessed to an unhealthy degree. I will happily concede that we need to make changes. I will happily concede that some people shouldn't own firearms. We don't need hyperbole to get those concessions. Now, what is your concern and how can I help address that beyond what has already been mentioned? Edit: I re-read what I wrote and it comes off rougher than I'd like. I'm going to leave it but I ask that you understand my frustration isn't directed at you, the individual. I am frustrated and I suspect that's able to be discerned from my writing style with that post. I am going to leave it because I am frustrated. People are seriously considering taking away my rights. I don't want any of my rights taken away - even if I didn't plan on using them. I have plenty of room and would happily let them house soldiers on my property, but I'm not wanting to give up the right to refuse.
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

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.
icc97 9y ago
As a Brit, I can't explain quite how foreign this logic is. It just blows my mind that people can think like this. Most American logic and way of life is remarkably similar. I feel like I understand the American way of life more than say Russian or Chinese. But guns are just such a fixation for the US more so than any other country.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Other than the hunting, it's a hobby. It is something that you can always practice and improve. At one point, I was enlisted in the Marines and seriously considered sniper school. Had I not been enlisted with the goal of paying for my education, I may have made that choice. I really enjoy the wanton slaughter of innocent bits of paper. If I'm feeling particularly cruel, I'll put a bunch of bits of paper out there and make them watch. I'm sure that makes me a monster to some people but I'm pretty harmless. Some people should not own firearms. That should be addressed. I don't think that should impact my liberties, however. If keeping my rights is a fixation, I'll wear that badge. Also, the US isn't that armed, compared to some other countries. We are fond of killing each other, so there's that. I suspect that is a bigger problem than the tool used to do it. If you ever get to this side of the pond, feel free to look me up. I'll teach you how to safely put rounds down range and on target. After that, it is all on you to improve your skill.
  - stephenr 9y ago
    > Also, the US isn't that armed, compared to some other countries. Wikipedia would disagree with you there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c... You don't sound like a "gun nut", but I have to question anyone who can't acknowledge that America is way more obsessed about owning guns than the rest of the planet.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      That's called lying with statistics. About 22% of the population owns a firearm. However, about 3% of us own 50% of the firearms. In other words, the number is accurate but misleading. Here is some recent data: https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/ https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-cha... My collection is a bit more than 300 individual, complete, firearms. Second, your link is only small arms in civilian hands and doesn't account for inaccurate reporting. Go to somewhere like, say, Somalia and I can assure you that you'll see the numbers are misleading. Then again, when a local militia counts as military, that tends to really make the whole civilian part moot. We are pretty obsessed. We aren't more obsessed than anywhere else on the planet. There are places on this planet where failure to own a firearm means you're a very, very vulnerable person. We can skip the histrionics and have a real conversation, if you'd like. Taking a simple statistic and extrapolating it to mean something quite different isn't very productive. Additionally, the data is from 2007 and has some noted caveats on your linked page. If you want a meaningful statistic, and I can't find one to cite, then the percentage of civilians who own firearms is much more significant than the total number. While I do own quite a few, I can't really effectively use more than one at a time. It isn't really like the movies. In the US, 22% of us own firearms. That is it. 3% of us own half of the firearms. I have enough for, oh, 300 people, give or take. Wikipedia and Google aren't that helpful, but I strongly suspect more than 1/5 the people in Somalia own firearms. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that they are far more likely to carry those firearms. I pick Somalia only to have a good example of why statistics are able to be horribly misleading. We do love our firearms, but I'm going to have to argue the bit about the 'rest of the planet.' I will happily concede that we have an unhealthy firearm culture. I will happily concede that we are obsessed to an unhealthy degree. I will happily concede that we need to make changes. I will happily concede that some people shouldn't own firearms. We don't need hyperbole to get those concessions. Now, what is your concern and how can I help address that beyond what has already been mentioned? Edit: I re-read what I wrote and it comes off rougher than I'd like. I'm going to leave it but I ask that you understand my frustration isn't directed at you, the individual. I am frustrated and I suspect that's able to be discerned from my writing style with that post. I am going to leave it because I am frustrated. People are seriously considering taking away my rights. I don't want any of my rights taken away - even if I didn't plan on using them. I have plenty of room and would happily let them house soldiers on my property, but I'm not wanting to give up the right to refuse.

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