The Lockdown: Gun locks - unsafe at any caliber
Noted security expert Marc Weber Tobias contributes The Lockdown, exposing the shoddy security you may depend on.
Two years ago I published an alert on my site regarding the inherent insecurity of gun trigger locks in the hope that manufacturers would remove them from the market or modify their design to make them more child-proof. Although some manufacturers now produce a more secure model to meet statutory requirements in California, even some of these can be easily compromised. Essentially nothing has changed: many manufacturers continue to sell products that are poorly designed, the consequences of which can be fatal -- literally. Even the cable locks that are provided under a US Justice Department grant to law enforcement agencies through Project ChildSafe for free dissemination to gun owners are inadequate.
I hope that this article will once again place all gun owners on notice of the dangers stemming from any form of trigger or cable lock to protect a weapon from unauthorized use by anyone -- but most importantly children. Have you ever seen an untrained eleven year old demonstrate the removal of three of the most popular trigger locks on the market from a rifle in just a few seconds? You will today. Read on.
Introduction
Leave your beliefs on second amendment rights here -- this isn't about guns, this article is about the gun locks many rely on to keep their families and themselves safe.
Now, in one sense it is accurate to say that guns do not kill; people do. This is especially true when children have access to firearms. For this reason, statutes now mandate that a gun lock be provided with every handgun that is sold. Law enforcement agencies have gone one step further; under a program funded by the Justice Department, a cable lock is provided for the asking by many law enforcement agencies in the country. This initiative is called Project ChildSafe.
In interviews with representatives of Project ChildSafe, I was advised that the cable locks that they provide have been tested pursuant to ASTM and California DOJ standards, and "there never has been a problem" (other than the 2001 CPSC recall of 400,000 units, due to the fact they could be opened by rapping them on a hard surface).
In my opinion the answer "we have never had a problem" does not address some very real issues people need to be concerned about when it comes to gun safety: low standards of security coupled with the cheap design of many of gun locks makes for a dire hazard. When I told Project ChildSafe that these gun locks could be bypassed in a few seconds and that the cables could be compromised in less time than specified in the California DOJ standard, I was again told that the lock was secure and that it would be irresponsible to show how to defeat the mechanisms. I was also told that because I was an expert, my opinion in this regard really was not relevant -- the implication was that although I could open these locks, kids could not. Oh really? See the following video, wherein an untrained 11 year old breaks into three widely distributed gun locks.
After speaking with high level representatives that work for DOJ and a supervising employee of one of the certified testing laboratories, it is clear that Project ChildSafe / California testing criteria could be characterized as a minimal attempt to placate manufacturers, gun owners and the public. In other words, these "standards" reached the lowest common denominator of protection. As is usually the case, everyone involved compromised so as to pass the initiative, and I would argue that your security wound up as the loser.
Know your gun locks
There are two primary types of locks to protect handguns and rifles: trigger locks (top) that are supposed to prevent the trigger from being pulled, and cable locks (bottom) to prevent the firing of a weapon by blocking the barrel or the use of ammunition. We have evaluated several popular locks to assess their security, including the Project ChildSafe PCS GL710N, Master 109, and Adstar model AB106B and AB105. What we found continues to amaze and trouble us: many of these locks can be removed in seconds with little skill. No real expertise is required, nor is locksmith training. Reference manuals are not needed -- there is already plenty of information on the internet for kids to find and read.
What's more, major manufacturers of popular locks such as Master, Winner International, Remington, Hoppes, and Franzen Security Products have designed their products with virtually identical operating features; they have effectively copied each others' deficient or defective designs. (The Franzen lock above is easily compromised even with a piece of paper or plastic -- sound familiar?) As demonstrated in the accompanying report, these can be compromised in seconds with an ice pick or long and thin screwdriver. To make matters worse, I demonstrated the removal of some of these locks from my Glock 9mm by slamming the butt against a hard surface. It was no problem to cause the lock to fly apart, exposing the trigger.
In my view, these locks constitute a serious threat to the security of every child that has physical access to any weapon supposedly protected by these devices. (Responsible gun owners keep their guns in a secure gun safe with locks that cannot be opened by ball point pens or bump keys. Experts also caution that no gun should be left in a loaded condition -- obviously!) All that is true and yet we still continue to experience injuries and death from gun accidents, which is precisely why California has mandated regulations for Firearm Safety Devices. But none of these standards in my view, adequately protect against two serious "real world" threats: lock bumping, and simple compromise of the cables.
Anecdotally, when I demonstrated the problem with the Project ChildSafe cable locks to our county sheriff, he responded by immediately developing warning labels for every lock that his department gives away, cautioning every user not to rely on the device for any measure of security, but rather to utilize an approved gun safe.
But why are gun locks, of all locks, so insecure to begin with?
In response to findings by the Consumer Product Safety Commission about seven years ago and the California standards, Master Lock and many other companies designed a better trigger lock (and other types of devices) that could not be removed in the fashion that was demonstrated by the eleven year old. So why are the companies still selling their junk locks for guns if better designs are available? Good question.
When I interviewed one major manufacturer (and former client) about making their locks more secure, they stated that they did not sell enough of them to justify the expenditure. Profit before safety should not be the rule when we are talking about guns and kids. Locks that cost a couple of dollars to produce can never protect anyone or anything. In this instance, poor engineering and the desire for profits can kill.
As a consumer, you might ask why you shouldn't use the more secure California certified Master Lock model 106 (or equivalent) to protect your weapon? Simple: as with many other locks, the 106 employs a cylinder that I am sure costs less than one dollar; again, the manufacturers (and Master Lock knows better) continue to do it on the cheap, utilizing an easily compromised four pin tumbler cylinder that is employed in most of their less expensive padlocks. Even Project ChildSafe locks can be easily bypassed by a simple and quite readily available bump key. Granted, not every lock on the market can probably be characterized as severely vulnerable, but based upon the typical lock design I would suspect a high percentage can be rapidly opened. And we know a child can bump open locks, compliments of our friends at Kwikset and many other manufacturers! Unfortunately, in this case, these inexpensive locks can result in catastrophic consequences.
And remember the brilliant design of the Targus Armored cable lock we compromised last year? The one that was supposed to be impervious to attacks on its cable because of its superior strength? Well, some of the Project ChildSafe locks employ the same type of armored cable; ostensibly a good idea, but in practice not particularly secure. One must merely bend the cable over upon itself with a pair of pliers and the armored rings can actually be used to help sever the inner cable. No wire cutters required. Yes, it is better than nothing (maybe), but it also creates a false sense of security.
I laud the California legislature, U.S. and California DOJ, and Project ChildSafe for their efforts to protect guns and kids. But California should have drafted real standards and done more research to assess vulnerability of some of these devices that they certify as secure. In my view, the standards do not go far enough.
Conclusion
Gunlocks, unlike most other types of devices, present a unique risk of harm especially to children when they are improperly designed or cheaply made. In my view, virtually none of the inexpensive consumer-grade trigger or cable locks are secure. The false sense of security shades the truth, which is that they should not be relied upon for any measure of protection in rendering lethal weapons inoperable.
We all know that guns are an attractive nuisance for children. That is why the California legislature led the nation and enacted laws to protect kids. Gun lock manufacturers should act responsibly and either fix the design deficiencies and defects in their products or withdraw them from the market before tragedy results, either from accidental or intentional discharge of a weapon. Likewise, retail outlets should refuse to sell gun locks that are not properly engineered.
I would urge Project ChildSafe to push for more stringent testing requirements for these devices. They have an excellent program so why not distribute locks that are really secure? A gun lock can be made to properly protect a weapon. Just saving one kid would be worth all the effort.
Further information is available at in.security.org.
Marc Weber Tobias is an investigative attorney and security specialist living in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. He represents and consults with lock manufacturers, government agencies and corporations in the U.S. and overseas regarding the design and bypass of locks and security systems. He has authored five police textbooks, including Locks, Safes, and Security, which is recognized as the primary reference for law enforcement and security professionals worldwide. The second edition, a 1400 page two-volume work, is utilized by criminal investigators, crime labs, locksmiths and those responsible for physical security. A ten-volume multimedia edition of his book is also available online. His website is security.org, and he welcomes reader comments and email.
Two years ago I published an alert on my site regarding the inherent insecurity of gun trigger locks in the hope that manufacturers would remove them from the market or modify their design to make them more child-proof. Although some manufacturers now produce a more secure model to meet statutory requirements in California, even some of these can be easily compromised. Essentially nothing has changed: many manufacturers continue to sell products that are poorly designed, the consequences of which can be fatal -- literally. Even the cable locks that are provided under a US Justice Department grant to law enforcement agencies through Project ChildSafe for free dissemination to gun owners are inadequate.I hope that this article will once again place all gun owners on notice of the dangers stemming from any form of trigger or cable lock to protect a weapon from unauthorized use by anyone -- but most importantly children. Have you ever seen an untrained eleven year old demonstrate the removal of three of the most popular trigger locks on the market from a rifle in just a few seconds? You will today. Read on.
Introduction
Leave your beliefs on second amendment rights here -- this isn't about guns, this article is about the gun locks many rely on to keep their families and themselves safe.
Now, in one sense it is accurate to say that guns do not kill; people do. This is especially true when children have access to firearms. For this reason, statutes now mandate that a gun lock be provided with every handgun that is sold. Law enforcement agencies have gone one step further; under a program funded by the Justice Department, a cable lock is provided for the asking by many law enforcement agencies in the country. This initiative is called Project ChildSafe.
In interviews with representatives of Project ChildSafe, I was advised that the cable locks that they provide have been tested pursuant to ASTM and California DOJ standards, and "there never has been a problem" (other than the 2001 CPSC recall of 400,000 units, due to the fact they could be opened by rapping them on a hard surface).
In my opinion the answer "we have never had a problem" does not address some very real issues people need to be concerned about when it comes to gun safety: low standards of security coupled with the cheap design of many of gun locks makes for a dire hazard. When I told Project ChildSafe that these gun locks could be bypassed in a few seconds and that the cables could be compromised in less time than specified in the California DOJ standard, I was again told that the lock was secure and that it would be irresponsible to show how to defeat the mechanisms. I was also told that because I was an expert, my opinion in this regard really was not relevant -- the implication was that although I could open these locks, kids could not. Oh really? See the following video, wherein an untrained 11 year old breaks into three widely distributed gun locks.
After speaking with high level representatives that work for DOJ and a supervising employee of one of the certified testing laboratories, it is clear that Project ChildSafe / California testing criteria could be characterized as a minimal attempt to placate manufacturers, gun owners and the public. In other words, these "standards" reached the lowest common denominator of protection. As is usually the case, everyone involved compromised so as to pass the initiative, and I would argue that your security wound up as the loser.
Know your gun locks
In my view, these locks constitute a serious threat to the security of every child that has physical access to any weapon supposedly protected by these devices. (Responsible gun owners keep their guns in a secure gun safe with locks that cannot be opened by ball point pens or bump keys. Experts also caution that no gun should be left in a loaded condition -- obviously!) All that is true and yet we still continue to experience injuries and death from gun accidents, which is precisely why California has mandated regulations for Firearm Safety Devices. But none of these standards in my view, adequately protect against two serious "real world" threats: lock bumping, and simple compromise of the cables.
Anecdotally, when I demonstrated the problem with the Project ChildSafe cable locks to our county sheriff, he responded by immediately developing warning labels for every lock that his department gives away, cautioning every user not to rely on the device for any measure of security, but rather to utilize an approved gun safe.
But why are gun locks, of all locks, so insecure to begin with?
In response to findings by the Consumer Product Safety Commission about seven years ago and the California standards, Master Lock and many other companies designed a better trigger lock (and other types of devices) that could not be removed in the fashion that was demonstrated by the eleven year old. So why are the companies still selling their junk locks for guns if better designs are available? Good question.
When I interviewed one major manufacturer (and former client) about making their locks more secure, they stated that they did not sell enough of them to justify the expenditure. Profit before safety should not be the rule when we are talking about guns and kids. Locks that cost a couple of dollars to produce can never protect anyone or anything. In this instance, poor engineering and the desire for profits can kill.
As a consumer, you might ask why you shouldn't use the more secure California certified Master Lock model 106 (or equivalent) to protect your weapon? Simple: as with many other locks, the 106 employs a cylinder that I am sure costs less than one dollar; again, the manufacturers (and Master Lock knows better) continue to do it on the cheap, utilizing an easily compromised four pin tumbler cylinder that is employed in most of their less expensive padlocks. Even Project ChildSafe locks can be easily bypassed by a simple and quite readily available bump key. Granted, not every lock on the market can probably be characterized as severely vulnerable, but based upon the typical lock design I would suspect a high percentage can be rapidly opened. And we know a child can bump open locks, compliments of our friends at Kwikset and many other manufacturers! Unfortunately, in this case, these inexpensive locks can result in catastrophic consequences.
I laud the California legislature, U.S. and California DOJ, and Project ChildSafe for their efforts to protect guns and kids. But California should have drafted real standards and done more research to assess vulnerability of some of these devices that they certify as secure. In my view, the standards do not go far enough.
Conclusion
Gunlocks, unlike most other types of devices, present a unique risk of harm especially to children when they are improperly designed or cheaply made. In my view, virtually none of the inexpensive consumer-grade trigger or cable locks are secure. The false sense of security shades the truth, which is that they should not be relied upon for any measure of protection in rendering lethal weapons inoperable.
We all know that guns are an attractive nuisance for children. That is why the California legislature led the nation and enacted laws to protect kids. Gun lock manufacturers should act responsibly and either fix the design deficiencies and defects in their products or withdraw them from the market before tragedy results, either from accidental or intentional discharge of a weapon. Likewise, retail outlets should refuse to sell gun locks that are not properly engineered.
I would urge Project ChildSafe to push for more stringent testing requirements for these devices. They have an excellent program so why not distribute locks that are really secure? A gun lock can be made to properly protect a weapon. Just saving one kid would be worth all the effort.
Further information is available at in.security.org.
Marc Weber Tobias is an investigative attorney and security specialist living in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. He represents and consults with lock manufacturers, government agencies and corporations in the U.S. and overseas regarding the design and bypass of locks and security systems. He has authored five police textbooks, including Locks, Safes, and Security, which is recognized as the primary reference for law enforcement and security professionals worldwide. The second edition, a 1400 page two-volume work, is utilized by criminal investigators, crime labs, locksmiths and those responsible for physical security. A ten-volume multimedia edition of his book is also available online. His website is security.org, and he welcomes reader comments and email.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Big Juju @ Jun 13th 2007 1:22PM
Wow - this sure sounds a lot like anti-gun propaganda and not so much to do with gadgets. When will we see political "news" on our favorite candidates?
eric @ Jun 13th 2007 1:28PM
That's odd, I didn't read anything in there anti-gun.
Jason @ Jun 13th 2007 1:36PM
There was absolutely nothing anti gun in there, in fact the author is a gun consumer. This is about safety, and even though I am a geek, and I read stuff here that interests me, 2 of my neighbors have guns, 1 of them has about 5 guns (he works in federal law enforcement), and he has what appears to be the same gun locks (remington) that was shown in that video.. that makes it relevant to me, as the last thing I need to hear is one of my neighbors kids shooting someone or themselves....
trev @ Jun 13th 2007 1:36PM
I dont think this is anti gun propoganda, gun locks SHOULD be as dam near close to infallible as possible. Especially when one of thier main goals is to protect children, however one of thier other goals is to protect the guns owner - what is the point of having one if some one breaks into your home and is easily able to bypass the lock and turn the gun against you or make off with it.
andy @ Jun 13th 2007 2:27PM
Trev,
How is someone supossed to get in my house, up the stairs, and into my bedroom before I can pick up my gun off the nightstand?
Safes and alarms are for protecting guns from theft.
Locks are for keeping the kids who are too young to understand what's dangerous away from things that are dangerous.
That's the point here, it doesn't protect your kids when it opens with just a little abuse (which kids are known to dish out on your junk from time to time).
benharmless @ Jun 13th 2007 5:37PM
I'm going to have to go ahead and point out here that the writer refers to his own Glock 9mm handgun in the article. I'll also point out that quite a lot of people who are not willing to read something are far too quick to dismiss it as propaganda. Someone has an agenda, but I wouldn't be pointing fingers at the author.
Arthur Nonamiss @ Jun 13th 2007 6:08PM
I, for one, consider myself very pro-gun, and I found the article very well written and unbiased. I don't know how you could construe anti-gun from it. Gun owners, more than anyone, need to understand the importance of securing their weapons. Every time some poor kid kills himself (or herself) with a gun, all the anti-gun nuts start squawking about making new laws restricting our rights. If all gun owners would properly secure their firearms, it would give the anti-gun movement that much less fodder for their arguments.
M Burke @ Jun 14th 2007 12:49AM
Damn straight. What is the point of a trigger lock if the gun is for protection? By the time you've gotten the stupid lock off your life and valuables are gone. You think with all the guns that existed in the years past that child-inflicted gunshot wounds would have been a bigger problem in the 30s, and even before given the number of guns per house hold. Folks need to realize that they cannot count on the government, society or a stupid trigger lock to protect their children. They need to train them, educate them and warn them themselves, its called "parenting".
paloooz @ Jun 13th 2007 1:24PM
My god! I didn't believe it when I saw the video, but I tried it and it literally took me 10 seconds to get the lock off the first time... Of course, this was AFTER I opened my 6 foot tall gun safe and pulled the guns out. My safe can't be opened with an ice pick ... So my gun locks are of no immediate danger to anybody.
Major Malfunction @ Jun 13th 2007 1:58PM
And of no use to you in an emergency. But I get your point. :)
derekwf @ Jun 13th 2007 1:25PM
And this has what to do with gadgets?
What's next, a commentary on the dangers of Pop Tarts on society?
Danny @ Jun 13th 2007 1:41PM
So who Do you guys want for President?
Jenny @ Jun 13th 2007 1:44PM
It's a post about locks. Look at the other "Relevant Posts" links above the comments. Locks were a gadget before they invented electronics.
Gunnar @ Jun 13th 2007 1:27PM
Unfortunately, no safety measures are enough for gun safety than educating people on how to handle a gun. This type of public awareness post is very useful and as many people visit Engadget, I believe this is helpful information regardless of its relevancy to "gadgets". I don't have children, but when they are old enough to understand what I am saying, I will have all the safety measures but educate them first. Carelessness and stupidity is big obstacle for safety....then careless and stupid anti-gun people.
PrimevilKneivel @ Jun 30th 2007 3:55PM
I agree that responsible use of firearms is key, that's why I couldn't help but notice how that kid had his rifle pointed directly at the camera (and operator) off the top of the video.
Hitchcock @ Jun 13th 2007 1:28PM
I have an easy solution to this problem. I just don't use gun locks. Works fine.
Jeremiah @ Jun 13th 2007 1:32PM
As a gun owner, I would like to have the most secure locks possible. Is there a lock on the market that is safe. I keep my guns in a biometric locked safe but I would like to ensure that each gun has a lock as well.
Jeff @ Jun 13th 2007 1:32PM
I can see this comment thread going down the toilet in a hurry...
Before it does, I'll just say that I can't understand how we allow a situation to exist in this country whereby manufacturers are forced to recall childrens' toys that have the potential to be a choking or other hazard, even when no harm has yet occurred... yet manufacturers of child safety locks on guns designed for no other purpose than to kill other human beings are allowed to get away with producing products that are demonstrably defective.
It is really mind-boggling.
Brad @ Jun 13th 2007 1:46PM
What is also mind boggling is that you are dilusional enough to believe that guns are only used/designed for killing humans.
Major Malfunction @ Jun 13th 2007 2:03PM
Well, we can argue the effect of guns back and forth, but you could say that in modern times, guns ARE designed to kill humans. Hunters do it for sport rather than sustenance and its a sad state when there is 'sport' in hunting an animal with a high powered rifle or .50 pistol. If you want to impress me, someone else, or yourself... go tackle that lion with your buck knife and call me when they reattach your arms.
Zap @ Jun 13th 2007 2:36PM
In defense of his post, you don't exactly go hunting with a Glock, you do buy it for defense of your home, and most likely to defend against a human invader.
In reality any minor who can use basic tools can get just about anything open, but as the video and some of the comments show it is far too easy to open. Gun locks should be made to a standard that basic hand tools can't be used to open them.
I am not anti-gun. While I don't own one, I am well educated in the use of firearms and if I do buy a gun you can be sure this post will make me do more research before I choose a gun lock.
JD @ Jun 13th 2007 3:47PM
there are many modern guns that are not designed nor practical for killing people. They are either too small (varmint rifle, air gun) or too big (big game gun, manly penis-extension gun)
as for 'sport'. You realize that our screwed up ecology requires us to cull deer in many regions of the united states. otherwise there would be famine in the population, which leads to disease. There are already massive problems with deer Tuberculosis in most states.
People also hunt with bows and arrows, it is quite popular, but far less effective and humane than a gun. although it is much more sporting.
I think you should hold off judging other people's hobbies. I don't go around insulting sky divers, mountain climbers, bicyclists, motorcyclists, owners of sports cars, career alcoholics, etc. just because I think their hobby is unsafe.
Mitty @ Jun 13th 2007 1:33PM
A consultant out trying to feather his nest. Nothing unusual about that. Trial lawyers take note: This guy might help you earn enough money that you, too, can try to buy respectability by purchasing a seat in the U.S. Senate.
1) If this is such a danger, why does he have no examples where a lock was compromised and something bad resulted?
2) "Just saving one kid would be worth all the effort." What if this costs $10,000,000? Is it worth that? And if so, why should society not instead use the $10,000,000 to save children's lives in Africa where it can probably be accomplished for $100 per?
This is not about guns _or_ locks. It is about stupid and self-serving writing.
traumzustand @ Jun 13th 2007 3:21PM
If it was your child, would $10,000,000 be worth it?
Mitty @ Jun 13th 2007 4:18PM
Irrelevant. The concept we are talking about is the amount of money society is willing to invest to save one life. In other words, the value of a life.
We know that a life has a monetary value because we do not spend the entire U.S. GDP to save a life. That is too much. But we would be willing to spend a dollar. So the value is somewhere in between. We also know that value varies with the life. American lives are substantially more valuable than African lives, as evidenced by the amount of money we spend to save them. Young, white, pretty female lives are more valuable than black lives of any sort -- as evidenced by the amount of law enforcement effort and publicity engendered by a kidnapping. These are all facts, not opinion.
My point was that this gun lock twit does not understand that society has determined that it is _not_ worth an unlimited amount to save one life. (Nor should it be IMHO.) But to be fair, he has achieved his objective of self-promotion and probably has no interest in anything else anyway.
dog @ Jun 13th 2007 7:00PM
I guess I don't get why your upset. The writer is asking that an already in place requirement for trigger locks be updated to make sure that the devices are actually secure. Simply changing a design isn't always expensive. The companies that make the products should at least look at making the design safe. If more people are aware that these locks are unsafe then the locks that ARE safe will be purchased and the crappy ones will be replaced by ones that work. I'm not familiar with the CA legislation but I guess if it were my money I would prefer that the locks the gov is buying work as advertised and can't be defeated by a damn screwdriver/pliers.
Mitty @ Jun 14th 2007 10:46AM
Oh, I'm not that upset -- just annoyed that another self-promoter is out whipping up people to solve a non-problem. I'll point out again that he offers _no_ data to say that there is an actual problem. Not even one anecdote. And statistically irrelevant anecdotes are a favorite tool of this type of twit.
It's like the English/Spanish warning labels you have to take off of every new extension cord you buy. Do you think a lot of people were putting bare wires in their mouths before the warning tags appeared? Do you think that warning tags made any difference? The answers are (1) no, and (2) yes. The difference is now we are all paying for these useless tags, as this gun lock twit would now have us pay for a bunch of federal regulation to solve a non-problem. Your gun lock is mickey-mouse? Don't buy it in the first place or replace it with one that is not.
End of thread.
Richard @ Jun 14th 2007 4:04PM
1) If this is such a danger, why does he have no examples where a lock was compromised and something bad resulted?
Hmm.... how does this make ANY sense? Since when did we need to see the end result to know something is dangerous? I don't need to drink a bottle of Drano to know it's dangerous. Same thing with locked guns: they're still LETHAL weapons. Don't need to hear about some kid who killed his pal because Jim Bob his dad bought the cheapest lock at Wal*Mart and keeps his rifle loaded.
Mitty @ Jun 14th 2007 5:47PM
"Since when did we need to see the end result to know something is dangerous?"
We don't. What we need to know is whether something that is dangerous in theory is, in fact, something worth taking steps to protect against. Economics 101 is beyond the scope of this discussion but that is where you need to start. Cost/benefit analysis specifically.
Exercise #1 for the student: Dancing between the feet of a marching elephant is dangerous. Should we take additional steps to prevent children in the United States from doing this? If so, why? How much should we be willing to spend? If not, why not?
Exercise #2: Weak gun locks have been responsible for zero deaths in the United States but someday they might. What is an acceptable national cost to increase the strength of gun locks?
Exercise #2a: If weak locks have caused one death (or plug in your favorite number) what is an acceptable national cost to increase the strength of gun locks so that this number is reduced? Hint: "Anything it takes." is not a tenable answer.
Extra Credit: Explain why there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Tom @ Jun 13th 2007 1:37PM
If a kid wants to break open a gun lock, they're going to do it no matter what. That's obvious here, and this post isn't going to change anything. The internet's a big place - this post is meant to educate, not teach. If a kid wants to break open a gun lock, there exists an outlet called Google.com. They will do it if they want to - removal of this information from engadget wouldn't change a thing.
Tubbimura @ Jun 13th 2007 1:38PM
First of all, Engadget is a blog about TECHNOLOGY not GADGETS. Just because it doesn't use electricity doesn't mean it's not technology. Second of all, people really shouldn't be complaining when he's bothered to put so much effort into keeping children safe. Good investigative journalism Tobias.
Arthur Nonamiss @ Jun 13th 2007 6:14PM
Gosh, you're so right. That's why they went out of their way to make sure the word "Gadget" wasn't in the title of the blog or anything...
Oh wait...
Arthur Nonamiss @ Jun 13th 2007 6:16PM
Sorry, that reply was supposed to be humorous, but came across as pretty snarky. :)
Evan @ Jun 14th 2007 1:11AM
Even though your post was meant to be positive towards the article. Please think before posting EnGADGET is not a blog about gadgets. Makes you look kind of dumb, and please take that as constructive criticism. I do agree with you about the article being well researched. Technology, gadget, or whatever you want to call it, it was well written and an important topic.
The comments here are also a prime example on why we cannot discuss gun issues in this country without getting ridiculous knee jerk reactions about how this somehow means the government is going to take your gun.
ganzhimself @ Jun 13th 2007 1:38PM
Simple solution... Store the firearms and ammunition in seperate places. Secure the firearms in a locked gun safe. Secure the ammunition in locked containers. Problem solved. If you don't have a gun safe, a regular padlock would also be adequate in blocking the trigger, just wrap the bolt in tape so as to not scratch the gun. Take some damn responsibility and teach your kids about guns if you own them, and for God's sake, don't leave loaded firearms lying around.
gshb @ Jun 13th 2007 1:39PM
its not a gadget if it doesnt use electricity!
jsantarosa @ Jun 13th 2007 1:41PM
Maybe some people should teach their kids that when they see a lock they shouldn't try to pry it open. And maybe keep the ammunition in a safe or somewhere else. That way even if the do break the lock the gun is useless.
dpixel8 @ Jun 13th 2007 1:41PM
It is pretty ignorant for anyone to believe that simply putting a lock on a firearm is going to prevent any dangerous situation from arising. Educating your children, as well as having a strong gun cabinet that isnt able to be penetrated by an ice pick, is pretty much common sense.
Which this article does not have much of.
Also I agree that you might want to remove the video as well as images showing how this is possible. All you are doing is enabling the same thing you are supposidly attempting to prevent from happening.
Hypocritical? Hrmmm
HonestBob @ Jun 13th 2007 1:42PM
I don't know anyone who doesn't throw these locks in the trash as soon as they open the box. You either keep your guns in a locked safe if there's ANY chance of anyone you don't want to touch a gun being in your home, or you're a complete tool that probably can't keep your dumb kid from drinking bleach either.
Mark @ Jun 13th 2007 1:42PM
Guns don't kill people, 11 year olds do!
bubba @ Jun 13th 2007 1:43PM
yeah, an "untrained" 11 year old.
he just happens to have an ice pick and knows exactly where to use it on each lock.
Sure the locks are not the best, but is this really the best portrayal of their compromise?
Remember locks are only there to keep the honest people out.
jalapeno @ Jun 13th 2007 1:48PM
Keep it coming Engadget, I love reading these security articles..and those who say this is not related to gadgets are naive and have never had their home burglarized and all their gadgets stolen.
Don't kid yourselves folks, biometric locks or any lock for that matter, can be circumvented, there is no such thing as a 100% secure lock. This is why we should all have multiple layers of security to make getting to the prize that much more difficult.
Brad @ Jun 13th 2007 1:49PM
how come there was no lock on that icepick? if they had kept the icepick away from the kid, we wouldnt even be talking about this right now.
MIKE @ Jun 13th 2007 1:50PM
That's why I keep all of my weapons in a vault and the ammo in a seperate container with a high-security lock. Denying that this type of compromise is possible or questioning it motivations is amazingly irresponsible. Gun owners must assume a very high level of responsibility for keeping their weapons secured.
yo @ Jun 13th 2007 1:51PM
Another reason to keep your gun unloaded if it is kept in storage, sensible people need only to lock the door to their room with firearms so as to save $800+ on gunsafes that caused the death of two california kids when they could not access the guns in time to defend themselves against a crazed man, only the mafia favour this kind of "saftey!"
chenry @ Jun 13th 2007 1:51PM
That's not good. I own several of those masterlocks.
chenry @ Jun 13th 2007 1:54PM
But those guns are in a safe.
Michael @ Jun 13th 2007 1:52PM
I agree, that video is way to graphic in it's depiction of how to disassemble those gun locks. Come on Engadget, the article is clearly about keeping our kids safe, and your showing them how to get into their dads guns.
fred @ Jun 13th 2007 1:57PM
Meh, I wanted to write a long diatribe on this, but to me it all comes back to, "why is this on my gadget site?" It's not that your message isn't valid, but you guys are posting an increasing amount of flamebait as of late, and this isn't even on subject. Maybe later we can talk about the immigration bill?
Kevin @ Jun 13th 2007 1:58PM
I think the real question here is "How did this kid get the ice pick lock off of the ice pick?" That's the real danger here - if "untrained" 11 year old boys have easy access to ice picks then we, as a nation, are doomed.