Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How a 3-Year-Old Can Open a Gun Safe

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the good-nightclub-act dept.

Security 646

New submitter bupbin writes "We are providing a detailed report and analysis of eleven different popular gun safes produced by Stack-On, GunVault, and Bulldog to warn the public of the dangers inherent in some of these products because the manufacturers nor their major retailers will do so. In that report you can view eight different Stack-On models, one produced by Bulldog, and one manufactured by GunVault. A similar design defect is demonstrated in an inexpensive safe for storing valuables that is sold by AMSEC, a very reputable safe manufacturer in the United States. Unfortunately, their digital safe with their claim of a 'state-of-the-art electronic lock' can also be opened (literally) by a three-year-old because of a common mechanism used in the industry that is subject to circumvention."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

what is a "gun safe"? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792405)

Is that life a normal safe only:
1) it's labelled as "'specially for guns!";
2) its manufacturer is prone to shooting itself in the foot?

Re:what is a "gun safe"? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792467)

It's a safe whose dimensions and interior is specifically designed for storing firearms.

News For Nerds??!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792429)

How is this really news for nerds? Seems like gun stories are here only to spark the inevitable flamewars over gun control.

Cue up the comments that have nothing to do with this story and use it to further their own political agendas.

Re:News For Nerds??!! (5, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792611)

How is this really news for nerds?

It doesn't specify compter nerds, does it? There are plenty of gun nerds out there.

In any case, it follows up yesterday's story about hotel room door locks nicely - same theme (poor physical security measures), different instance.

Re:News For Nerds??!! (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792645)

But lock design is news for nerds.

Re:News For Nerds??!! (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792657)

Locks are designed by engineers. (Nerds)

Re:News For Nerds??!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792727)

Apparently not gun safe locks. Those appear to have been designed by circus clowns.

Lock hobbyist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792865)

Indeed. I have found more low-cost safes than not can be opened merely by dropping them on the floor at an appropriate angle. Granted any electric safe that uses a spring actuated solenoid can be opened in such a manner.

Usually this is not a problem for most applications, but when the payload is a loaded handgun this is a disaster.

Re:News For Nerds??!! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792663)

Replace gun safe with general-purpose safe and maybe you'll understand? Much irony in this post.

Re:News For Nerds??!! (0)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792803)

The sooner we stop responding to timothy posts the better.

Not growing up with spy movies must have sucked (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792843)

Since when was knowing how to pick a lock not a part of a young nerd's rite of passage?

It is like taking clocks apart or building "spy gadgets".

gun safe? (-1, Flamebait)

bedonnant (958404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792435)

Best way to be gun safe is to have no gun in the first place.

Re:gun safe? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792449)

That's like saying the best way not to die in a car accident is to bike to work.

Re:gun safe? (-1, Offtopic)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792527)

Not really. Most people drive their cars every day for practical purposes such as getting to work. Most gun owners use their guns only for recreational purposes, such as hunting. Many guns are owned only for self protection, and most of those are never used for that purpose. So, yes, cars kill lots of people, but they are mostly used for practical, beneficial reasons. Guns owned by private owners mostly kill or hurt innocent animals or people. That's not to say I'm against others owning guns, but I wouldn't choose to own one.

Re:gun safe? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792705)

While hunting is recreational, it is necessary in certain areas and not done purely for kicks and giggles. The OP is still a fucking idiot though, if you want to avoid all danger, just kill yourself. If you want to be a moron, blame the tools.

Re:gun safe? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792729)

Guns owned by private owners mostly kill or hurt innocent animals or people.

Leaving aside questions of innocence, that is most certainly false. There are more rounds of ammunition expended, more man hours of gun handling, and likely more total guns involved, in the Knob Creek machine gun shoot, than over the course of all hunting seasons in the US combined, along with all homicides involving firearms. Let along other shooting event like the hundreds of GSSF shoots, the Grand American Trap Shoot, etc etc etc.

But thinking more broadly, there are many millions of people on the earth who will never ride in a car in their lifetimes and certainly don't use one for a commute. They are luxury items meant for rich people. Why is their indulgence worth the thousands of lives lost every year? And what about computers? Most, in private hands, are used for dinking around on the internet and largely pointless communication. And hacking. So why not eliminate hacking by banning privately owned computers? It isn't like we will lose much.

Re:gun safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792841)

Sadly for your point, death by computer still lags far behind death by shooting.

Re:gun safe? (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792905)

Guns owned by private owners mostly kill or hurt innocent animals or people.

You are mistaken. Target shooting (paper, clay pigeons, metal plates, etc) is far more common.

Re:gun safe? (2)

ethanms (319039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792579)

That's like saying the best way not to die in a car accident is to bike to work.

Well... yes actually that is what it's saying. If you don't own a gun, you are safe as you can reasonably be from gun accidents. If you don't own a car, you're as safe from them as you can be.

You can still get run over or shot when you're outside. So really staying in your basement is the only answer to complete safety, unless there's a flood, or tornado... or radon.

Re:gun safe? (0, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792753)

> Well... yes actually that is what it's saying.

Then you are dumb. The odds of my being killed by a gun have almost no relationship to whether I own one myself. Assuming I'm not the sort of idiot who is likely enough to shoot myself by accident to raise those odds out of the statistical noise of course. The odds of dying by gunfire are mostly driven by how popular they are in crime and how much crime I'm likely to be experience.

Since you are dumb you probably should not own a gun, you might be the sort of idiot who would shoot themself. You probably should not vote or reproduce either but alas you probably do those things.

Ths whole article is just about the general topic of security theater, most 'security' products are rubbish and locks only stop the honest. If you think a $36 product is actually a 'safe', again I have to conclude that you should not reproduce. They sell them because, exactly as the article notes, people buy them to check off a box.

Re:gun safe? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792637)

That's like saying the best way not to die in a car accident is to bike to work.

Sadly, if you live in America, taking a bike to work will *increase* your odds of being killed in a car accident.

Re:gun safe? (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792717)

That's like saying the best way not to die in a car accident is to swim to work.

Fixed. For Amsterdam and Venice, anyhow.

Re:gun safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792909)

Because most bikers don't use the bike lanes/paths.

Re:gun safe? (2)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792779)

That's like saying an apple is an orange.

Not being in a car does not magically make one immune to the other eleventy billion imbeciles on the road.

Not having a gun in the house kind of makes it hard for a kid to shoot himself in the face with your non-existent gun.

I think the fundamental problem is that any safe that protects your kid from a gun, will also prevent you from swiftly retrieving it should you ever need to protect yourself. Or did you think that half-bred gang member was going to wait a few minutes to give you a fair fight ?

Re:gun safe? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792475)

Best way to be not dead, is to prepare for the worst.

Re:gun safe? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792481)

So the best way to avoid car accidents is to not own a car?

Seems a bit impractical.

Re:gun safe? (2, Insightful)

bedonnant (958404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792517)

In what world can owning a car be compared to owning a gun? Quick reminder: one is designed to go from one place to another, the other is designed to kill other people.

Re:gun safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792535)

the other is designed to kill other people.

The other is designed for various things. It doesn't have to be used solely for killing people.

Re:gun safe? (5, Informative)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792557)

Not correct.

A gun is designed to kill other things, not explicitly people, though people are often the target.

This is something that gets me very unhappy with the gun control crowd. A pistol *IS* an indispensable farm implement.

(Ever tried to shoot a pack of coyotes eating your spring calves using a bolt action rifle? You tend to get only one of the bastards, and then you end up losing another calf the next night. Something more rapid fire and quick to handle is required for effective pest control.)

Re:gun safe? (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792643)

A pistol is not the right tool for this job.

You want an SKS or if you have more money a Mini-30. Coyotes are small enough that even cheap FMJs are quite effective.

Shooting is an Olympic Sport (5, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792675)

A gun is designed to kill other things ...

No. They can also be designed or used for putting holes in pieces of paper, knocking over or pinging metal plates, breaking pieces of clay, etc. Shooting is also a sport. Given that slashdot seems to be on a current events theme I'll add that shooting is an Olympic Sport.

Re:gun safe? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792679)

(Ever tried to shoot a pack of coyotes eating your spring calves using a bolt action rifle? You tend to get only one of the bastards, and then you end up losing another calf the next night. Something more rapid fire and quick to handle is required for effective pest control.)

Stupidest thing I've ever heard right there. You want accuracy and you want quick reloads. Coyotes aren't going to let you get close enough for a pistol to be effective. Smart farmers use semi-automatic rifles and if you'd prefer a safer weapon and are willing to take your time shooting, a pump action or lever action gun. Pistols and handguns have one purpose: shooting humans. They offer neither accuracy nor shorter time between shots -- in fact the recoil on the pistol is greater than on a rifle so your aim is worse. Handguns are used for their ability to be concealed and portability -- distinctly non-farm traits that are instead better suited for shooting other humans at close range.

Re:gun safe? (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792749)

More stupid non-gunowner talk right above me.

You do realize they sell handguns for hunting right?
Large frame revolvers are well suited to such a task. If the recoil is so great as to be a problem the shooter has selected a round to large for them to safely handle.

Pump actions nor lever guns are any safer than a large single action revolver.

Re:gun safe? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792857)

Pump actions nor lever guns are any safer than a large single action revolver.

You should probably go back to your gun safety training class (if you ever took it). The mere physics of how easily it is to unintentionally point a handgun makes them more dangerous to their owners and flat out less safe. The safest guns require a mechanic action in between shots and effort to point the gun in any direction.

Try committing suicide with a lever action Winchester. Now try committing suicide with a large single action revolver. Notice any differences?

Re:gun safe? (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792797)

Ever tried to shoot a pack of coyotes eating your spring calves using a bolt action rifle?

You are obviously part ghost and/or quite a marksman. Sneaking up on coyotes to get within effective pistol range is quite a feat. Equally impressive is the fact you are out-shooting a rifle with your side-arm, at running coytotes. Perhaps you're using an Uzi?

Re:gun safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792895)

Ever tried to shoot a pack of coyotes eating your spring calves using a bolt action rifle?

You are obviously part ghost and/or quite a marksman. Sneaking up on coyotes to get within effective pistol range is quite a feat. Equally impressive is the fact you are out-shooting a rifle with your side-arm, at running coytotes. Perhaps you're using an Uzi?

Agreed, that part about killing coyotes with a handgun is downright hilarious. He's either stupid, a liar or both.

Re:gun safe? (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792595)

I own no guns designed to kill other people. One is designed to kill small game, another to kill turkeys and another for deer.

What sort of guns are you buying?

I compare them because they are both deadly in the wrong hands.

Re:gun safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792735)

Ah, the joy of killing things.

Re:gun safe? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792851)

Ah, the joy of eating.
Unlike you I have not yet learned to live from only water and air so things have to die for me to live.

Re:gun safe? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792617)

In what world can owning a car be compared to owning a gun? Quick reminder: one is designed to go from one place to another, the other is designed to kill other people.

Wait, guns are designed to go from one place to another?

-- a battle-weary cyclist

Re:gun safe? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792661)

There are a ton of guns that are designed specifically for target shooting or hunting. A Walther GSP [wikipedia.org] is designed to kill people about as much as an Indy Car is designed to take kids to soccer practice.

Re:gun safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792787)

if you had wanted to stray from the point further, you might even have mentioned water guns.

Target shooting is a sport ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792791)

In what world can owning a car be compared to owning a gun? Quick reminder: one is designed to go from one place to another, the other is designed to kill other people.

No. At Boy Scout summer camp we used guns designed for putting holes in pieces of paper and breaking pieces of clay. Check out the Olympics, you will find guns used for similar things. Shooting is a sport, that it the most common usage of firearms.

Re:gun safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792809)

Well, if you look at the numbers, cars kill an amazingly larger number (absolute and per capita) of individuals than privately owned guns. So, if you want to talk about societies obligation to mediate needless death and carnage - you'd better at least consider what is near, if not the, leading tool of sudden termination. By comparison - guns aren't even on the chart.

Re:gun safe? (1)

CSMoran (1577071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792817)

In what world can owning a car be compared to owning a gun? Quick reminder: one is designed to go from one place to another, the other is designed to kill other people.

In this world. Comparisons are made about things that are not identical, silly.

Guns aren't like cars (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792627)

So the best way to avoid car accidents is to not own a car?

Not really parallel because...

Seems a bit impractical.

Yeah, in the modern US, communities are mostly planned and constructed on the assumption that people will use cars for basic tasks like travel between home and work, travelling between home and places to by food and other necessities, etc. So its often impractical to get through daily life without a car.

Guns...not so much. That's not to say that there aren't people who legitimately need them, or at least live/work/etc. in circumstances where the benefits of having one outweigh the risks such that it is rational to own them. But its not really parallel to automobiles at all.

Re:gun safe? (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792501)

Be sure to also avoid going to a movie theater to see Batman.

they aren't safes (5, Informative)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792447)

Umm... the StackOn, etc. aren't safes. They are locking steel boxes, kinda flimsy, no fire rating, not UL listed, etc.

Compare with products from Liberty, Cannon, etc.

Re:they aren't safes (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792569)

Yeah you're quite right. I probably should have added that to my post under yours. My gun safe has a key lock(pin tumbler), a dial lock, and a bar-handle lock. You need to engage all three before you can open it. It's tedious, but in Canada you're required to store guns in a safe manner. And ammo has to be store separately from the guns as well. I dislike these "security safes" they're cheap, useless and best of all they try to make a showy face of being secure, when at best they're inviting disaster. And anyone with about 8 seconds of time, can open them. 3yr old not required.

Re:they aren't safes (3, Funny)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792733)

"Stack On" makes the shittiest tool boxes on earth. It's a ripoff of the "Snap On" name, but made in Crapistan and sold in discount stores. Seriously, I'd feel safer storing my guns in cardboard boxes. This is NOT news.

"Safes" are mostly a placebo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792469)

I've always heard that all serious safes are rated in "minutes" - meaning that's how long they'll delay a serious attacker from penetrating it's security.

Given the cheap and shoddy (and imported - Yes imported. The lighter and thinner the construction the cheaper it is to ship) nature of pretty much all appliances marketed to the general public nowadays I'm not surprised that the new metric is "minutes against a bored 3 year old"

Re:"Safes" are mostly a placebo. (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792607)

Anymore, safes are more for fire and disaster instead of security.

Re:"Safes" are mostly a placebo. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792625)

A serious, skilled attacker. Most common burglers probably wouldn't know how. The simplist attack against a small safe is to pick it up and carry it out - then worry about opening it later on. Might need a crowbar if it's been bolted to a wall, but with a crowbar enough force can be applied to rip bolts out of most non-structural walls - along with chunks of wall.

Re:"Safes" are mostly a placebo. (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792671)

This is why you bolt them into a concrete floor, better yet set the safe right into the concrete.

Re:"Safes" are mostly a placebo. (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792859)

Kind of a problem if you don't have a concrete floor. I mean, i do, its in the basement, but not everyone even has those, hell, some people just have a room on a non-ground floor. I know, I have rented non-ground floors to such people.

Re:"Safes" are mostly a placebo. (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792799)

In the UK, all you really need is a lockable steel box that's somewhat resistant to being forced open - a padlock will do for locking it. It's got to be bolted down, or welded to something structural, though.

Basically all you need is something that cannot easily be carried away and cannot easily be broken open.

Re:"Safes" are mostly a placebo. (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792893)

I have a $100 stack-on gun cabinet (that's what it's called, nobody calls it a safe) with a manual keyed lock and I love it. It's roomy, stores all my guns including a large scoped rifle, and is quite sturdy. It bolts to wall studs from the inside. I dare anyone, even a gang of thugs who pumped iron in prison, to break it open by force or take it from my house with their bare hands. I'll even give them a screwdriver. They won't be able to.

It would take a large crowbar or a power drill or some other serious tool and criminal intent/effort to break it open. In other words, it secures my guns from the kids and it keeps honest people honest. Which is all that it's designed to do.

Shouldn't be a big shock (5, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792473)

My sister and I were picking pin tumbler locks when we were 6 and 7, getting us into all sorts of trouble as most people on /. could guess. A lot of electronic locks, can be bypassed by sharp jarring. Which is exactly what this appears to be, not a real surprise. Even mechanical locks that they use in hotel rooms can be bypassed using this manner.

Beh, the most elegant designs are usually defeated by the most simple solutions.

Re:Shouldn't be a big shock (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792831)

The "most elegant design" would be a big heavy slab of metal with a fat deadbolt. Anything else is pure snake oil. Electronic lock ? Dude, please, if I can rip out a button or smash through the screen, I can short the damn solenoid wires or rotate the gear myself.

Hell, even a bike lock is harder to defeat than these gun "safes".

Re:Shouldn't be a big shock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792837)

Yeah like no one would ever think of just dropping the box.

Loaded gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792503)

Why was it loaded?

Re:Loaded gun? (1, Insightful)

Spritzer (950539) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792603)

Because an unloaded personal defense weapon is as useful as a brick. You don't see many people carrying concealed bricks or with bricks next to their bed for a reason. It's worthless.

Re:Loaded gun? (5, Interesting)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792711)

There was a time when you didn't have to carry bricks. Because streets were made from cobblestones.

A paving stone at short range is more effective than a club or sabre. The disappearance of cobble and paving stones has been more of a deterrent to the overthrowing of governments than machine guns, tear bombs and automatic pistols. For it is in the clashes when the government does not want to kill its citizens but to club, ride down and beat them into submission with the flat of a sabre that a government is overthrown. Any government that uses machine guns once too often on its citizens will fall automatically. Regimes are kept in with the club and the blackjack, not the machine gun or bayonet, and while there were paving stones there was never an unarmed mob to club.

-Ernest Hemmingway, Death in the Afternoon

Re:Loaded gun? (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792833)

Someone didn't RTFA. The gun safe in question was issued by a police dept for the safekeeping of service weapons. Those tend to be 'hot'.

As a father (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792537)

As a father of young children, I given thought to having a gun in the home. I've concluded that if your reason to have a gun is for safety or defense, then if you can't sleep with it loaded under your pillow it probably can never be used in time to be useful. The problem is that you cannot do this with young children in the home; therefore, what are the alternatives? Some I've come up with, with debatable usefulness might be:

- A dog
- Martial arts training

Of course this is if you don't have the option of moving to a more peaceful location..

Re:As a father (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792573)

I have bear spray I carry when backpacking. At home I keep it very near my bed and it's the first thing I grab if I think anything's going down. I've had people break into my garage in the middle of the night so I wouldn't be surprised if they tried the house.

Re:As a father (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792695)

http://www.amazon.com/Gunvault-MVB500-Microvault-Biometric-Pistol/dp/B001UAMZD4 [amazon.com]

Place your hand on the box and it unlocks. You and retrieve a gun from this box in 2-3 seconds.

Re:As a father (1)

daenris (892027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792807)

Yes, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was as easy to open as the similar models discussed in the article, making it useless as a way of keeping the gun safely out of your kids' grasp.

Re:As a father (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792703)

Shotgun, with rounds only in the tube. A child young enough to not be taught firearm safety will not be able to cycle the pump.

Same thing with a big semi-auto pistol. A 3 year old will never be able to rack the slide.

I still suggest keeping them in a safe of course, and just keep the safe in the bedroom.

Re:As a father (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792775)

A baseball bat is more useful than martial arts training. Gives you some reach and doesn't require any skill. Dogs that aren't professionally trained are mostly just good as alarms, and their false positive rate is horrendous.

Re:As a father (5, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792861)

- A dog
- Martial arts training

Warning: Property guarded by martial arts-trained dog.

My little sister picked my BB gun's trigger lock (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792543)

When I was in middle school (many years ago!), after earning the riflery boy scout merit badge, I managed to convince my very-reluctant parents to buy me a BB gun. It was not in a safe, but I purchased a trigger lock from Master Lock to prevent my little sister, who was in elementary school at the time, from getting into trouble with it.

One day when I was away, she picked the lock with a pocket knife. She was not particularly mechanically adept, either.

Fortunately, nothing came of it--she just went out back and shot some soda cans--but there's a real problem here.

Re:My little sister picked my BB gun's trigger loc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792641)

I know her... Anne, right?

Re:My little sister picked my BB gun's trigger loc (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792773)

The trick is to teach kids how to handle the gun so that you take away the mystery. When I grew up we had guns in the house and not locked up at all. My dad's shotgun and hunting rifle generally were leaning up in a corner. No trigger locks. If he'd been hunting earlier that day they may very well be loaded.

It was like that from birth till I moved out. Wanna know why me and my siblings didn't die horrible deaths? Because we didn't feel a need to secretly "play" with the gun. If I wanted to go out and shoot it all I had to do was ask and my dad would take me out shooting. Not only that, but during those shooting sessions he taught me exactly how the gun worked, how to safely load and unload it, and how to handle it. Even if I HAD handled the gun while he was gone I was perfectly capable to doing so safely.

As they say: if you have a pool in the backyard, which do you think would be more effective: Putting a fence around it, or teaching your kids to swim?

Re:My little sister picked my BB gun's trigger loc (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792899)

The most effective thing to do would be to do both.

Which is what my parents did. Safes for the guns, ammo in another place and plenty of range time for the kids.

Why do governments always resort to coverup? (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792547)

QUOTE: "Ed Owens began voicing concerns about the security of these containers and that every other officer within the Department might be at risk. As a result, he was subsequently fired after fifteen months for allegedly violating department policies."

Oh yeah. Hide the problem instead of facing it head-on and dealing with it. Damn politicians.

Simple flaw. (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792563)

Short version: The locking solonoid mechanism can be mechanically disrupted into an open state by applying a sharp vertical acceleration. The three-year-old used in testing achieved this by picking the safe a few inches off the ground and dropping it. The mechanism design is common across models and manufacturers.

An obvious countermeasure is to use the bolts usually supplied to securely attach the safe to a wall or floor. If it cannot be lifted, there is no way to apply the jolt needed to knock the mechanism open.

Re:Simple flaw. (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792785)

In your universe hammers do not exist?

Re:Simple flaw. (1)

dwillden (521345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792819)

Yep, and don't let your kids buy six inch brass strips at the hardware store. While this weakness is of mild concern, mostly it just shows that a little additional care must be placed in the location of these containers. The Stack-ons should be bolted, the others are more bedside containers in which you only put the weapon when you are going to be sleeping next to it. Thus if the kids are in the room while you are not, the weapon is being carried by you or is properly stored in a real security container, such as a bolted down stack-on container.

Re:Simple flaw. (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792827)

>>> If it cannot be lifted, there is no way to apply the jolt needed to knock the mechanism open.

True but also false. If you RTFA you will see they secured the safe to the floor, but were still able to jiggle-open the lock with a piece of metal. The locks are no more secure than the lock on a child's piggy bank.

Re:Simple flaw. (3, Insightful)

CaptBubba (696284) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792883)

The safes should be designed such that they cannot be used until those bolts are in place, perhaps similar to how smoke detectors have a small lever arrangement so they cannot be installed in their bracket if you don't have a battery in them. It isn't exactly a secret that a sizable number of people (perhaps even the majority for the smallest safes) don't bother to bolt the safes down.

If something is a safety-critical requirement for the operation of the device then it should be designed in a way that the device will not operate without it.

If only... (1)

GoNINzo (32266) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792567)

If only we had a consumer group that could protect children from getting into their parents guns... Oh wait, we do, and they are more worried about kids swallowing small magnets instead.

Re:If only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792651)

I did not know the NSSF was concerned about magnets.
http://www.nssf.org/education/video.cfm
http://nssf.org/events/featurette/0511-2.cfm

Re:If only... (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792745)

The magnets are given to children as toys. The risk there is pretty high. It's not like there's an epidemic of three-year-olds opening locked gun safes.

Re:If only... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792815)

The risk is that the offspring of those stupid enough to give adults dangerous toys to children will now survive.

Giving these magnets to kids is about as smart as giving them a loaded gun.

Gun related? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792577)

What does poor safe design have to do with guns??

Re:Gun related? (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792685)

What does poor safe design have to do with guns??

Primary use case?

warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792585)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty [wikipedia.org]
Those safes are not fit for their intended purpose.
Start suing.

Re:warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792867)

Forget warranties. This crosses the line into criminal negligence.

bolt it down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792601)

I'm reasonably sure that all of these are supposed to be installed by bolting them down (mine certainly is) which would prevent that kind of tampering. You'd reasonably also want to install these boxes where a child will not normally be able to reach as an additional precaution. Oh and don't keep shims lying around to pop locks with, apparently that happened in the house the video was shot...

Re:bolt it down (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792761)

I have a safe of similar design, and it did come with some rather hefty expanding bolts for just this purpose. I imagine that if there were properly installed in a structural wall, that safe isn't going anywhere even with a crowbar. I'm sure that there are plenty of safes around that have been carefully bolted to drywall or plasterboard though - the bolts may hold, but a thief with a crowbar could steal the safe along with a sizeable piece of wall.

TSA airline guidelines (5, Funny)

Saxophonist (937341) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792649)

Remember the Stack-On press release that touted the fact that their containers met “TSA airline guidelines” as if this endorsement is added evidence of the security of their products? We tested these containers, and the reality is they can be opened in a variety of ways including with a tiny piece of brass by a three year old.

That pretty much says it all right there. The TSA approves something because it can be opened by a three-year-old, meaning their own employees might have a 50/50 shot at it.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792683)

I'm not aware of any age limit in the Constitution. 3 year-olds should have the right to carry guns too. What if there's a shooting at the kindergarten? An armed 3 year old could conceivably end that tragedy. Stupid libs and their gun safes.

Fear monger much? (1)

twnth (575721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792713)

what's the next story going to be? "How a 2 year old opens drawer full of kitchen knives"?

Seriously, it doesn't matter what you get, there will be a cheep version available. You get what you pay for. No news there.

Utterly useless design (4, Insightful)

CaptBubba (696284) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792737)

That locking mechanism is just atrocious. They thought using a single solenoid which when actuated retracts to allow the bolts to be withdrawn was a secure design in a safe the size of a shoebox? Add in that because it is battery powered it can't have a strong return spring and of course it will be easy to open by giving it a small physical shock. FFS even something simple like a bolt driven by a small stepper motor and a worm gear would be orders of magnitude better.

That the company and distributors are refusing to admit there is a problem is disgusting, but understandable given how large the potential liability is in this situation.

Not News (5, Insightful)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792739)

Locksmiths have been using these exact techniques for 20 years to open safes. This is nothing new nor secret. What's next, a video of a security consultant picking a deadbolt in 20 seconds?

First off, safes (which store anything) should be bolted into the foundation of your home. Therefore the pick-up-and-drop method is ineffective. A sturdy strike from a hammer may open some of them, but not all.

Second, none of these are real "gun safes". A real gun safe weighs 300 lbs. and cannot be opened using any of these methods. You need a large drill and a schematic of the inside of the door. These lock boxes are intended to be hidden somewhere (back of a closet, behind a bed) and allow for quick access (15 seconds to open) in the event of an emergency. Kids should not know where they are, nor be able to reach them. A real gun owner would know this.

Re:Not News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792871)

thank you sir.

every responsible gun owner should either:

A) Have a safe like described above
B) Not have children

Amazed (0, Flamebait)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#40792825)

I'm always amazed how many pro-gun nerds there are on Slashdot. When I read their postings coming to the defense of the 2nd amendment, I have this chilling image of a thirty-something programmer polishing his Glock and recalling the memory of an atomic wedgie whilst staring at the heavily circled calendar date of his high school reunion.

Let me guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40792847)

Let me guess before I read the article. They used the brute force technique, right?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?