Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

Pack a bag with a couple of changes of clothes, sleeping stuff, underwear toiletries, and just leave it in your car. If you have a pair of "outside" shoes (like hiking boots or something you would go camping in) put those in the car too. This is also for earthquake prep, you can run out of the house into your car and you're not going to spend the next week in the same clothes.

Then prioritize by things that are hard to replace that will give you access to other things. So passport, cash, flash drives, chargers etc. Those should be in your car ready to go.

Also think about how quickly you can get them out of your car (so if you have to transfer at a road block to a rescue vehicle).

Family Radios if you have them, extra batteries, can keep you in touch with your family and responders.

If you happen to have ammunition try to put it somewhere that it won't hurt anyone if it is 'cooked off' by heat. A friend of mine in the sierras keeps his shotgun shells in the root cellar for that reason.

EDIT: The ammo cooking off isn't going to kill anyone but it will startle them. And it can make it harder on fire fighters. So please if you have some, try to insure it won't explode.

Depending on how much time you have and what sort of tools, you can bury things that you don't want to burn. I have heard, but haven't tested, that if you bury something at least 12" below regular soil it will survive the time it takes a fire to move past. If you do it at the start (so the ground is bare on top) then you can avoid having any burning material over the cache.

View on HN

Honestly ammo going off from a fire really isn't a big deal.Without a barrel for the ammo to travel through it has no chance to build up velocity. The casing is more dangerous than the bullet at that point.

Center-fire cartridges usually have seated the primer with a material that will melt at temperatures lower than is needed to set the round off. This has the effect of reducing pressure, as well as the normal lack of pressure when it isn't chambered.

> ammunition

Wat? Does US law not require ammunition be stored in a gun safe!?

No, it does not, at least nowhere that I’ve ever heard of. Maybe someplace like Chicago, I dunno.

Not just ammunition, US law doesn’t require guns to be stored in a safe or have something like a trigger lock. You can use your kitchen table to store all the loaded firearms you want.

Depends on the state. CA has safe storage laws if minors are present:

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips

And it's wise to follow them even if minors aren't present. If some kids are trespassing you can be held liable in a hurry.

If I recall law school correctly, this would generally not apply to trespassers, only to people you have invited onto your property. There is an exception to this general rule for "attractive nuisances", so if you put guns in a place where they were visible from the property line you might fall into that exception.

Not saying one shouldn't use proper storage, only that liability probably would not result if you didn't (at least under federal law — as others have noted various states/cities have tighter laws).

In some states like mine it's required you store ammunition under your pillow, loaded in your handgun. I'm only half joking.

Pretty sure it's required in the state of Paranoia.

Guns go in the gun safe. Ammo goes in the ammo room.

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.

> 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!

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.

> 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.'

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.

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.

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.

> 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_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.

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-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.

In response to your self-examination of “being rough”, IMO you’ve presented your perspective in an honest, civil and level-headed way. I hope one day to live in a world where people for and against any issue can discuss that issue with the civility you have demonstrated here.

In my experience, stepping outside of my Liberal-biased comfort zone and having such civil discussions with others has helped me realize that people tend to have so much more in common with each other than their partisan alignments would allow them to think. Also, as a result of that experience, I no longer use such labels to describe myself or others. Because right vs left or whatever branding people may choose for themselves are simply a false dichotomy that keeps us distracted from solving real problems.

I am actually very left leaning, to the point where I make a European blush. What I am not is an authoritarian.

This doesn't fit well in American politics. My concerns are preservation of liberties while ensuring protection of the commons and striking a reasonable balance between them.

I'm just not a Statist. I absolutely think we should have things like inexpensive education, a broad social safety net, universal health care, and progressive taxation.

I've never actually been represented by a government official.

Like you, I don't fit easily into a box or a definition. I'm fairly moderate and reasonable, I hope. I didn't emote my way to these positions, I used logic and reason. I've held these views up for debate and have had this same conversation hundreds of times - some of those conversations helping me define and present my views better. I am absolutely willing to adjust based on new information and try to be both realistic and pragmatic.

So, I absolutely appreciate your civility. It is a rarity to be able to reach this level of discourse, more so on a public forum.

That says a great deal about you as a person and about the HN community which has played host to this conversation. (I've noticed the votes coming in, so we are being observed.)

I don't expect to change views. I hope to give reason and an example. It's REALLY hard to hold my position of being pro-firearm ownership when I'm in certain circles. The political climate doesn't make it easy.

So, I usually try to be really careful about what I say and how I say it. It makes for long posts but I think it easier to be clear than it is to be defensive.

Again, I absolutely admire your civility and willingness to hear a view that isn't shared often. I do confess, many of the other firearm owners make this much more difficult. They are a problem and I don't have a solution other than my above proposals.

I don't see as the US as being monsters, just that it seems very very important to you.

I spent a couple of years in the air cadets (youth version of the air force) and I fired rifles there. I can see reasons for it in the military. You're right it is very much a skill and a very important one in human history to be able hit a target.

Archery does something similar but I don't see people collecting hundreds of bows and arrows.

But literally I've never known someone who owns a handgun, or been in a house where there is one. Let alone automatic rifles.

I'm not saying that it's wrong or right just foreign.

Cheers for the invitation :) If you come this side of the pond I'll find some exciting cheese rolling competition for you to do

Oh, I own several dozen bows, a wide collection of arrows, and a couple of crossbows. I take a couple of handicapped people out to hunt and Maine allows handicapped people to hunt with a crossbow.

Wow... We are so far off-topic, but we're being civil and productive so, hopefully, nobody minds too much. Email is available and an option.

On that note, I'd probably rather be shot with a bullet than with a bolt from a crossbow. The energy imparted by a fairly bog standard crossbow at 100 yards is about the same amount of energy imparted by a .45 at 6". The damage a bolt causes is unbelievable, if you're not familiar with it.

Even a simple recurve bow with a 70# draw imparts a great deal of force. I can reasonably fire three arrows in ten seconds.

Anyhow, I do hunt during archery season - if you hadn't guessed. I'll be harvesting my deer during archery season and haven't decided if I'm going to try for a bear with a bow. I'm worried about not getting a clean shot and the bear suffering needlessly.

As mentioned before, I kill and process the vast majority of the meat that I eat. I respect the animal and don't want to cause additional or prolonged suffering.

I guess the partial point I'm making is that a firearm is a tool and needn't be used to harm humans. I have other tools that will readily harm a human. I don't plan on ever doing so and would go to great lengths to avoid doing so.

Not all of us want to be Rambo and dream about fighting off bad guys in an active shooter situation. Unlike the movies, getting shot at kind of sucks and is scary. I'd like to avoid that. The problem is, and it is a problem, we have people who seem to fetishizes just that. We also have crazy people. I submit there's overlap between those two groups.

> I guess the partial point I'm making is that a firearm is a tool and needn't be used to harm humans.

This brings to mind my stance over the last few years regarding firearms, which is I think it would be beneficial to outlaw handguns (as opposed to rifles or shotguns), if it could be feasibly done (it probably can't, there's far too many out there already). Firearms can be utilitarian, but the extra utility offered by miniaturizing them to the point that they are easily carried on your body, and easily hidden on your body, seems to encourage modes of use that are detrimental.

Police, of course, may have reason to need a small firearm handy, but even then there seem to be problems where it's so easy to access that it's used inappropriately (or even accidentally used instead of a taser).

When hunting bears, it's prudent to carry a sidearm. Bears will sometimes stay really still, appearing as if they're dead, and will attack when you get close enough.

(That situation counts for every black bear attack in Maine since the 1880s.)

A rifle isn't as easily maneuvered in tight situations and close up. You don't want to damage the meat more than you have to - so that you're maximizing the value.

Dispatching a wounded animal (of other types) with a pistol is fairly common and the rounds are less likely to cause much more damage.

Additionally, I rabbit hunt with a .22 (Ruger Mk II) frequently. Opportunistic rabbits are delicious and easily taken with a small round.

Then, there's sport shooting. Pistol clubs and competitions are quite common activities in certain spheres. I was on both a rifle and pistol club. (Back then, they were actually functions at my school. Our firearms were locked in the closet in the headmaster's office.)

So, there's justified reasons to own a pistol.

Also, as you suggested, I have no idea how they'd get them off the street. I can't even begin to imagine the uproar.

As an aside, as far as I know, the largest mass killing of civilians in America was at the Battle of Wounded Knee. After disarming the civilians, they massacred a bunch of them, including women and children.

When the Revolution really got started, the British were marching their way to Concord to confiscate the powder, shot, and cannon. They were going to go disarm the citizens.

I have no idea how we'd be able to get pistols off the street and I'm not sure that'd actually solve anything. Most firearm deaths that aren't suicides are caused by people who aren't actually interested in obeying the law.

Even if we could, I'm not sure that I'd want to give up that liberty. Freedom does come with penalties. Liberties come with associated risk. We can speculate that speech is a more a cause than the firearm used to commit the act, I don't want to give up that right either.

As for the police, I'd like to disarm them except for specially trained officers and only for use in certain situations. I don't see that as being political feasible either. Call it a hunch, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.

> So, there's justified reasons to own a pistol.

Well, that depends. If those are justified reasons, then there are justified reasons to own and operate a .50 cal BMG rifle, a grenade launcher, or landmines. You can make a sport out of anything, and that something is used as equipment a sport isn't a good reason for its legality. Of the things you mentioned, the bear safety is the most compelling, but that's easily solved by circling widely to the front and putting an extra round in the head. That's safe. It would be nice if handguns could only be used responsibly, but they have specific attributes that I think make them problematic for society.

> Additionally, I rabbit hunt with a .22 (Ruger Mk II) frequently. Opportunistic rabbits are delicious and easily taken with a small round.

When I was young I watched my grandfather take a golpher in the head while it was diving into its hole at 30 yards using a .22 rifle. I pulled the body out of the hole it landed halfway in. I'm not convinced a handgun is required for this either.

> When the Revolution really got started, the British were marching their way to Concord to confiscate the powder, shot, and cannon. They were going to go disarm the citizens.

Sort of a on-sequitur, since we're not talking about removing all firearms, just a specific type of firearm, and one of less use in an armed conflict than the ones I'm proposing we could keep. I believe the right to bear arms is important. I believe in the citizenry's right and responsibility to be a check on the government. I'm just not sure how handguns really support that in a way that isn't by other firearms, and I do think they have unique disadvantages for society.

> Freedom does come with penalties. Liberties come with associated risk.

This argument is all too often unqualified. Should we all be allowed access to RPGs, land mines and missiles? I believe there exist weapons that the regular citizenry don't necessarily need regular access to. If you believe the same, I think it's entirely valid to ask for what criteria makes some of those items valid for that list and not hand guns. That may be easily answered by some, but others might find it hard to justify their initial reaction.

Edit: Fixed some typos

I own multiple firearms in .50 cal, including the vaunted Barrett. I have no qualms with people who can demonstrate safety, proficiency, and sanity being allowed to own firearms of those types.

Firearms are well defined. An RPG or landmine is not a firearm.

Need isn't the issue. You don't need your freedom of speech, either. You don't need your right to be secure in your papers.

Much like all my other liberties, I own firearms because I want to. I speak because I want to.

> I own multiple firearms in .50 cal, including the vaunted Barrett. I have no qualms with people who can demonstrate safety, proficiency, and sanity being allowed to own firearms of those types.

We're not talking about that though. We're talking about liberties, and the right to bear arms, which is very much not restricted to people that can show those skills for the vast majority of the country (which is not to say the majority don't have those skills,just that it's not a requirement of ownership).

> Firearms are well defined. An RPG or landmine is not a firearm.

The liberty in question is the right to bear "arms". While firearms generally means hand-held weapons, "arms" does not. If the right to own and bear these is a liberty that people are not upset about, why, and what's the difference? What about cannons? Historical, or modern? Mortars?

I posit that people have made distinctions based on cultural norms and/or personal desire in mony cases instead of specific attributes that classify them into groups (even if the government has classified them into groups legally), and that handguns, if looked at with an open mind, might not fit into the group of what is considered acceptable (if it wasn't grandfathered in already).

> Need isn't the issue. You don't need your freedom of speech, either. You don't need your right to be secure in your papers.

But need should factor into whether something is a legal exception that is allowed. I would argue that some form of firearms are needed based on the constitution and bill of rights. I'm just not sure handguns are needed.

You may have missed one of my posts. I think we can both agree that certain people should be excluded from owning firearms. Because of the risks involved, I'm very much in favor of testing for competency, safety, security, and sanity.

Right now, we have a problem. Banning and trying to confiscate a firearm type is not a reasonable solution.

Hell, even defining pistol in a useful way is damned difficult.

If need factors into it, we don't need any of our rights. Humans survive in totalitarian regimes.

Place reasonable restrictions and work on the social issues. We both agree reasonable restrictions are a good idea. I submit that your definition of reasonable is different than my own.

It is not okay to take away my liberties because you're afraid of a statistical outlier. Yes, being an outlier sucks, but that's not a good reason to go banning things that scare you.

It's great that you said you're not sure that handguns are needed. That means you're not sure they should be prohibited. If nothing else, that gives us room for discussion.

Liberty is about having the lawful option. It's not about needs. If it were, they'd call them necessities.

> You may have missed one of my posts...

I'm not really trying to hammer you on this, I'm more testing out this argument to see how it goes. This is more to find if there's some obvious thing I'm missing.

> Right now, we have a problem. Banning and trying to confiscate a firearm type is not a reasonable solution.

Well, we already ban other types. It's not going to solve anything, but that doesn't mean it might not help in some small way.

> I submit that your definition of reasonable is different than my own.

I was just trying to figure out how you defined reasonable. It's easy for people to say "it's not reasonable" when they really mean "I don't want to think about it in a reasonable manner and explain myself". I'm not accusing you of that.

> It is not okay to take away my liberties because you're afraid of a statistical outlier.

Well, some of your liberties are already denied you, depending on interpretation. Is the important thing that they are "taken away", so you feel it, or that they are denied, in which case whether they exist right now is moot.

> If nothing else, that gives us room for discussion.

That's all this is! :) I'm not sure it would help even if it could be implemented, but I thought it was interesting to discuss.

Thanks for discussing it with me. :)

What was effectively a handgun ban came into enforcement in the UK [0] in 1996. One exception was for sporting clubs.

Of course we're pretty short of bears.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_Unite...

The political environment, and willingness to cede control to the State, is very different than it is here. I suspect the attempt would mean armed insurrection if tried here.

I am not condoning it, I'm merely pointing out that it's quite probable.

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.

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

So refreshing to see incredulity when talking about US gun laws.

If your guns are for home protection how on earth would you be well served by needing to open a second safe to get your ammo?

Exactly, that's why the responsible gun owner just protecting themselves is a myth, most times they are needed for self defense you won't have quick enough access if you are storing them responsibly.

If you feel the need to have guns for home protection, it might be a better idea to move somewhere safer

That isn't really an option for a lot of people, unfortunately.

Should I move to a fireproof home instead of own a fire extinguisher?

I don't know why everyone can't have a fireproof home, like me. /s

When was the last time someone went on a killing spree with a fire extinguisher?

I don't know. But there's been countless killing sprees with knives, and I have those in my kitchen drawer. Not even a locked drawer.

Knives, however, have legitimate uses. Guns don't.

Your hypothetical unnecessarily opts to store ammunition in a second safe to your weapon.

The above thread made no reference to owning a weapon for home protection.

Ammo cooking off in a fire sounds dramatic but isn't particularly dangerous [0], unless of course a loaded gun is burning. In the OP's position it would be really low on my list of priorities.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlOXowwC4c (skip to about 13 min)

If you felt I was implying it was dangerous then I misspoke. It isn't. However, it is rather startling to first responders. If there are fire fighters trying to save your house and it starts going 'bang! bang!' at them, they will stop and go elsewhere.

It's the same as with gas canisters, fireworks, petrol for your lawn mower or what other highly flammable substances you might have.

Place it so it ideally won't harm anyone. Granted that's hard if the entire neighborhood goes up in flames.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com