This is dumb. The "arguments". You need to test safety equipment to make sure it works. If it doesn't, then you need to find a solution. The illusion of security is worse than having the knowledge of no security.
God damn... The amount of times I've heard those arguments in my gunsmithing classes when I simply mention that someone should store their gun somewhere safe is ridiculous... You'd think they have no idea how dangerous they are and yet they're going to school to professionally work on them... SMH
There was an Instagram influencer whom I cannot remember her handle, but she got mad and blocked me when I started pointing out how insecure this 4 foot long gun box with a tubular lock, the hinges on the outside, and only one latch in the center keeping the whole thing closed was that she was getting paid promotions for... This thing is about as secure as Staples branded file cabinet with a wafer lock! What concerned me more, is there was people complaining in the comments about how much a "decent" safe costs $900+ and this piece of garbage is much more affordable! at $200 - $300!
Good, honest response-thank you for saying what needs to be said. It’s genuinely unfortunate that you even have to make a dedicated video to defend the obvious need for testing, but sadly, ignorance and isolation are hard to break through. People are often coddling their own unrebukable opinions, unwilling to engage with perspectives that challenge their beliefs. That’s just human nature, and it’s especially prevalent online where echo chambers reinforce this mindset. But despite the resistance, you’re still doing vital work, and it’s appreciated. It should be straightforward: if a product fails to meet safety standards, it’s a bad product. End of story. People shouldn’t take offense at factual criticism. But of course, this is the internet, and logic often takes a back seat to emotion. I think there may be a connection between this and how the handgun safe industry markets itself, linking the product’s value to the deeply ingrained importance of gun ownership itself. By critiquing these safes, it can feel to some like an indirect “attack” on the Second Amendment, as if questioning the product is questioning their right to own a gun. Obviously, that’s not the case, but it seems that kind of emotional reasoning might be driving some of the backlash.
I was in the Army Reserve as a Combat Engineer. I carried what I was issued and learned what I was taught. Since getting out, I have learned far more and invested in far better equipment and arms. It’s not to convince anyone of anything. I don’t wear it to the grocery store. I’m not pretending to be former military… I *am* former military. I learn it and I have it because I believe there is a better-than-zero chance I will need it. *Being in the military convinced me of that.*
"...staging guns around the home. This is a bad idea." THANK YOU! How do you address those who claim you (and lock picking hobbyists etc) are thieves, and thus promote the idea of, as LPL has described it, "security through obscurity"?
All hackers aren't thieves. I don't know any hacker who would promote the idea of security through obscurity. In one of my latest videos, about the e-stash handgun safe, I address this issue.
@@HandgunSafe omigosh. I left an important word out, whether thru my own error, or one of the bugs in the virtual keyboard I use! Very sorry, as it changes the whole meaning. I meant to say, "How do you address those who claim you...are HELPING thieves...", not "are thieves". Whoo boy what a blunder. I meant how people say that showing how to defeat a lock is making it easier for the criminals.
@@danielgoodman3578 How can I be helping thieves when I am not responsible for the design defects that allow these devices to be opened so easily? I am not the one providing easy access to handgun safes. I am doing nothing more than showing what manufacturers either fail or refuse to share with customers, who have a right to make an informed decision as to whether to buy a handgun safe.
Honestly, any security products like locks, safes, and even ones in the digital realm should have people who are very good at breaking into them try it out before it even hits the market. Then we wouldn't even need these kinds of videos.
You have opened my eyes to mechanical flaws that I would've remained ignorant of otherwise. You provide a consumer service and a demonstrable warning for those that are securing a tool that requires security. There's no need for further explanation. Let the djcks be djcks.
Pausing in the end of the stolen valor segment before you list the arguments, then I'll continue watching after this comment. The stolen valor claims I'm most used to are those against weirdos who slap together some sort of military uniform that is actually decorated with anything among actual military patches, rank insignia, ribbons/medals, maybe etc. Some will not be wearing the uniform correctly or will maybe just wear part of a uniform. When confronted in public, they'll have a made up story about real US military experience that never happened. It differs from tacticool gun owners/militia types who either would never make such claims nor wear such adornments, but take an interest in the gear itself like plate carriers and so on.
The effort has more to do with learning to talk the talk, with suggesting and hinting that one has military or law-enforcement background one doesn't have. The line between Mr. Tactical and a full-blown military/law-enforcement fake is blurry. It shouldn't be.
There's an aspect to Point #2 that you didn't address. There can in fact be a difference between the intent of the manufacturer of a safe and how the safe is used by the gun owners who buy it. That said, the practices you speak of are so common and widespread that it would be hard for me to accept that the manufacturers are ignorant to the likelihood that their product will be used as permanent storage. So in the end, as I write this comment and think about, I still find myself agreeing with you. Good video, btw, and thanks for posting it.
You may have a point. Unfortunately, as I explained in my previous video, the Chinese manufacturers who design and produce most of these devices don't know what they're doing. They don't own guns or live in compliance with gun laws or have a clear idea of how these devices might be used. Industry is a mess.
The only part of this that doesn't make sense is demeaning gun owners for purchasing tactical equipment and getting trained. Sure, some may be pretending to be something they aren't. The rest are preparing for hard times.
I don’t think he was trying to be demeaning so much as noting that a person spends a lot of time and money on preparing for extremely low probability events, while at the same time tries to argue against the testing of a gun safe designed to mitigate a low probability event. I may be wrong though. Cheers!
(I haven't watched your latest videos yet where you also appear because I'm still burnt out from RUclips, so I didn't notice this wasn't the first video)
I've thought about it, though I am reluctant to pursue the idea. The kinds of features gun owners have become accustomed to, and expect, are often the very features I would avoid incorporating into a design of my own. I might invest a lot of resources in starting a new business only to find that I cannot persuade the target market.
This is dumb. The "arguments". You need to test safety equipment to make sure it works. If it doesn't, then you need to find a solution. The illusion of security is worse than having the knowledge of no security.
God damn... The amount of times I've heard those arguments in my gunsmithing classes when I simply mention that someone should store their gun somewhere safe is ridiculous... You'd think they have no idea how dangerous they are and yet they're going to school to professionally work on them... SMH
There was an Instagram influencer whom I cannot remember her handle, but she got mad and blocked me when I started pointing out how insecure this 4 foot long gun box with a tubular lock, the hinges on the outside, and only one latch in the center keeping the whole thing closed was that she was getting paid promotions for... This thing is about as secure as Staples branded file cabinet with a wafer lock!
What concerned me more, is there was people complaining in the comments about how much a "decent" safe costs $900+ and this piece of garbage is much more affordable! at $200 - $300!
Good, honest response-thank you for saying what needs to be said. It’s genuinely unfortunate that you even have to make a dedicated video to defend the obvious need for testing, but sadly, ignorance and isolation are hard to break through. People are often coddling their own unrebukable opinions, unwilling to engage with perspectives that challenge their beliefs. That’s just human nature, and it’s especially prevalent online where echo chambers reinforce this mindset. But despite the resistance, you’re still doing vital work, and it’s appreciated.
It should be straightforward: if a product fails to meet safety standards, it’s a bad product. End of story. People shouldn’t take offense at factual criticism. But of course, this is the internet, and logic often takes a back seat to emotion. I think there may be a connection between this and how the handgun safe industry markets itself, linking the product’s value to the deeply ingrained importance of gun ownership itself. By critiquing these safes, it can feel to some like an indirect “attack” on the Second Amendment, as if questioning the product is questioning their right to own a gun. Obviously, that’s not the case, but it seems that kind of emotional reasoning might be driving some of the backlash.
I wish I could reach into the ether and have knowledge in hand.
I was in the Army Reserve as a Combat Engineer. I carried what I was issued and learned what I was taught.
Since getting out, I have learned far more and invested in far better equipment and arms. It’s not to convince anyone of anything. I don’t wear it to the grocery store. I’m not pretending to be former military… I *am* former military. I learn it and I have it because I believe there is a better-than-zero chance I will need it.
*Being in the military convinced me of that.*
great show i love learning even at my age
"...staging guns around the home. This is a bad idea." THANK YOU!
How do you address those who claim you (and lock picking hobbyists etc) are thieves, and thus promote the idea of, as LPL has described it, "security through obscurity"?
All hackers aren't thieves. I don't know any hacker who would promote the idea of security through obscurity. In one of my latest videos, about the e-stash handgun safe, I address this issue.
@@HandgunSafe omigosh. I left an important word out, whether thru my own error, or one of the bugs in the virtual keyboard I use! Very sorry, as it changes the whole meaning. I meant to say, "How do you address those who claim you...are HELPING thieves...", not "are thieves". Whoo boy what a blunder. I meant how people say that showing how to defeat a lock is making it easier for the criminals.
@@danielgoodman3578 How can I be helping thieves when I am not responsible for the design defects that allow these devices to be opened so easily? I am not the one providing easy access to handgun safes. I am doing nothing more than showing what manufacturers either fail or refuse to share with customers, who have a right to make an informed decision as to whether to buy a handgun safe.
@@HandgunSafe Thank you
Honestly, any security products like locks, safes, and even ones in the digital realm should have people who are very good at breaking into them try it out before it even hits the market. Then we wouldn't even need these kinds of videos.
You have opened my eyes to mechanical flaws that I would've remained ignorant of otherwise. You provide a consumer service and a demonstrable warning for those that are securing a tool that requires security. There's no need for further explanation. Let the djcks be djcks.
Pausing in the end of the stolen valor segment before you list the arguments, then I'll continue watching after this comment. The stolen valor claims I'm most used to are those against weirdos who slap together some sort of military uniform that is actually decorated with anything among actual military patches, rank insignia, ribbons/medals, maybe etc. Some will not be wearing the uniform correctly or will maybe just wear part of a uniform. When confronted in public, they'll have a made up story about real US military experience that never happened. It differs from tacticool gun owners/militia types who either would never make such claims nor wear such adornments, but take an interest in the gear itself like plate carriers and so on.
The effort has more to do with learning to talk the talk, with suggesting and hinting that one has military or law-enforcement background one doesn't have. The line between Mr. Tactical and a full-blown military/law-enforcement fake is blurry. It shouldn't be.
There's an aspect to Point #2 that you didn't address. There can in fact be a difference between the intent of the manufacturer of a safe and how the safe is used by the gun owners who buy it. That said, the practices you speak of are so common and widespread that it would be hard for me to accept that the manufacturers are ignorant to the likelihood that their product will be used as permanent storage. So in the end, as I write this comment and think about, I still find myself agreeing with you. Good video, btw, and thanks for posting it.
You may have a point. Unfortunately, as I explained in my previous video, the Chinese manufacturers who design and produce most of these devices don't know what they're doing. They don't own guns or live in compliance with gun laws or have a clear idea of how these devices might be used. Industry is a mess.
Your opening describes the Dunning-Kruger effect very accurately.
FYI the original Dunning-Kruger paper found that people are fairly accurate at assessing their own ability
I think that one safe which was mounted to the wall was held in place with just drywall anchors!
8:55 Nice _"best of"_
The only part of this that doesn't make sense is demeaning gun owners for purchasing tactical equipment and getting trained. Sure, some may be pretending to be something they aren't. The rest are preparing for hard times.
I don’t think he was trying to be demeaning so much as noting that a person spends a lot of time and money on preparing for extremely low probability events, while at the same time tries to argue against the testing of a gun safe designed to mitigate a low probability event. I may be wrong though. Cheers!
So that's the face behind the hands. Nice to meet you.
(I haven't watched your latest videos yet where you also appear because I'm still burnt out from RUclips, so I didn't notice this wasn't the first video)
And now you know why I never bothered in videos past. Looking at me is not enhancing anyone's RUclips experience.
Amazing video have you ever thought of making your own safe?
I've thought about it, though I am reluctant to pursue the idea. The kinds of features gun owners have become accustomed to, and expect, are often the very features I would avoid incorporating into a design of my own. I might invest a lot of resources in starting a new business only to find that I cannot persuade the target market.