Literally The Stupidest Gun Safe Design I've Ever Seen

[Oro]

Watching this made me think about the square hole video on youtube

Holy cow that's hilarious. If any of you missed this, watch it!

I know she's acting, but it's funny. There's also a Part 2:

 

[Mikej]

Holy cow that's hilarious. If any of you missed this, watch it!

I know she's acting, but it's funny. There's also a Part 2:

democrat voter. That's all that come to mind.

 

[eustace_stelio]

Buy one then glue a rat trap inside, if it will still slam shut that is, and place in various areas theives would first look.

But heck, here in America you'd probably get sued if a thief actually did hurt themselves on it while trying to rob you.

 

[Tlock]

Buy one then glue a rat trap inside, if it will still slam shut that is, and place in various areas theives would first look.

But heck, here in America you'd probably get sued if a thief actually did hurt themselves on it while trying to rob you.

A 110 conibear would work too....might take a few mods. That's would smart!

 

[bradsteen]

Is anyone surprised that a country that basically prohibits private gun ownership would suck at making gun safes?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Is anyone surprised that a country that basically prohibits private gun ownership would suck at making gun safes?

Along with sucking at making quality body armor and quality gear unless you've specified for it

Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan are far and away better for gear made overseas.. and most of Europe too.

 

[lucusloc]

Along with sucking at making quality body armor and quality gear unless you've specified for it

Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan are far and away better for gear made overseas.. and most of Europe too.

It's almost like countries that care about their industrial export reputation actually have laws in place that regulate the quality of goods, rather than choosing to allow unethical actors produce whatever garbage they think they can move through deception and false marketing with no consequence. Who'd have thought right?

 

[bradsteen]

It's almost like countries that care about their industrial export reputation actually have laws in place that regulate the quality of goods, rather than choosing to allow unethical actors produce whatever garbage they think they can move through deception and false marketing with no consequence. Who'd have thought right?

Companies should be free to make whatever products they believe will meet the demands of their consumers, and consumers are ultimately responsible for vetting what they spend their money on. If the product sucks, consumers can engage the company for a refund or leave negative feedback so others are forewarned. There is absolutely no reason to insert more bureaucracy and regulation into the process - that drives up cost and delays time to market for new products.

 

[Nosferatu]

It's almost like countries that care about their industrial export reputation actually have laws in place that regulate the quality of goods, rather than choosing to allow unethical actors produce whatever garbage they think they can move through deception and false marketing with no consequence. Who'd have thought right?

That would REALLY upset all the Hi-Point fanboyz out there.

 

[Flopsweat]

It's almost like countries that care about their industrial export reputation actually have laws in place that regulate the quality of goods, rather than choosing to allow unethical actors produce whatever garbage they think they can move through deception and false marketing with no consequence. Who'd have thought right?

To be fair, if a Chinese company screws up and kills a few pets or babies, sometimes the CCP will execute the CEO. But if they want to sell you a POS safe, I'm not aware of any concern at all.

 

[lucusloc]

Companies should be free to make whatever products they believe will meet the demands of their consumers, and consumers are ultimately responsible for vetting what they spend their money on. If the product sucks, consumers can engage the company for a refund or leave negative feedback so others are forewarned. There is absolutely no reason to insert more bureaucracy and regulation into the process - that drives up cost and delays time to market for new products.

So if you order one of these safes and the manufacture refuses to give a refund based on the merits of your claim, what do you do? Leave a bad review? These companies change names like toilet paper. They do not care about bad reviews, they will market an item until it no longer sells under that name, then simply change he name and market the exact same trash as a "different" product. And when you try to sue that company for false or misleading marketing guess what? The export country (China) takes the official position that it was your fault for buying the product in the first place.

China only cares about "their reputation" when their scams are egregious enough to potentially affect import laws, like the whole issue with the poison dog food a few years ago. Both Europe and the U.S. were a hair's breadth away from enacting import bans on Chinese products in that market category, so China had to step in an enact legal sanctions against the factory in question, least they lose basically their entire export market for the product.

They do not do that for most all other market segments, relying on the legal fig-leaf-of-defense that some kind of product was shipped to the customer, and quality or fitment for service be damned. In this particular case Amazon is not even allowing reviews and comments on the product, so the listing is staying up and buyers cannot easily find honest assessments of the item when it is most pertinent for them to have the information (on the product listing page). And even if that listing gets enough negative coverage that sales taper off, the product will simply be relisted (possibly with some minor cosmetic changes) under a new brand name. It will be impossible for the average consumer to link the old known-bad product with the new one.

We have laws against false and deceptive marketing for a reason. This is to present liability to a company above and beyond what a single consumer or class of consumers can muster. If you present a product as fit for service it must meat the minimum expected requirements for that service. If it does not you should be facing civil sanctions for false advertising in addition to whatever liability you face from individual consumers wanting refunds and damages. This prevents a company from simply marking up their fake product enough to cover the individual liability and ensure a profit no matter how many claims they receive. The additional civil liability they face from regulators should be enough to wipe out any potential profit they can scam from consumers, which has proven to be enough to keep the worst of these actors out of the general marketplace (at least in countries that can muster good enforcement of such laws).

A market economy that does not enact such measures is a market economy that basically sanctions fraud. Because at the end of the day that is what false advertising boils down to; pure, simple, basic fraud. You say you will deliver one thing, then you knowingly and intentionally send the customer something else entirely, pocketing the difference in price-vs.-expectation for yourself.

I do not know about you, but I do not think an economy that sanctions naked fraud is one that will survive very long. Nearly all economic transactions require some base level of trust. Without that trust commerce will grind to a halt and violence will become the transactional medium of choice.

 

[lucusloc]

That would REALLY upset all the Hi-Point fanboyz out there.

I presume this is just a funny joke made at the expense of low hanging fruit, but I can't see anything that Hi-Point does that would constitute false advertising. Their guns go "bang" quite reliably, last basically forever, and all their flaws on on full display in any ad copy they put out. It is awful hard to hid the fact that they have the form factor of a brick and the ergonomics of a 2x4 when you are publishing a photo of the product in question. You get basically exactly what you see when you buy one of their products.

People can certainly question the motivation of a consumer who buys such a product (I don't, but then I have a different expectation of their target consumer base), but there is little doubt that the consumer is getting exactly what one would reasonably expect to get from the presented marketing.

 

[Flopsweat]

So if you order one of these safes and the manufacture refuses to give a refund based on the merits of your claim, what do you do? Leave a bad review? These companies change names like toilet paper. They do not care about bad reviews, they will market an item until it no longer sells under that name, then simply change he name and market the exact same trash as a "different" product. And when you try to sue that company for false or misleading marketing guess what? The export country (China) takes the official position that it was your fault for buying the product in the first place.

China only cares about "their reputation" when their scams are egregious enough to potentially affect import laws, like the whole issue with the poison dog food a few years ago. Both Europe and the U.S. were a hair's breadth away from enacting import bans on Chinese products in that market category, so China had to step in an enact legal sanctions against the factory in question, least they lose basically their entire export market for the product.

They do not do that for most all other market segments, relying on the legal fig-leaf-of-defense that some kind of product was shipped to the customer, and quality or fitment for service be damned. In this particular case Amazon is not even allowing reviews and comments on the product, so the listing is staying up and buyers cannot easily find honest assessments of the item when it is most pertinent for them to have the information (on the product listing page). And even if that listing gets enough negative coverage that sales taper off, the product will simply be relisted (possibly with some minor cosmetic changes) under a new brand name. It will be impossible for the average consumer to link the old known-bad product with the new one.

We have laws against false and deceptive marketing for a reason. This is to present liability to a company above and beyond what a single consumer or class of consumers can muster. If you present a product as fit for service it must meat the minimum expected requirements for that service. If it does not you should be facing civil sanctions for false advertising in addition to whatever liability you face from individual consumers wanting refunds and damages. This prevents a company from simply marking up their fake product enough to cover the individual liability and ensure a profit no matter how many claims they receive. The additional civil liability they face from regulators should be enough to wipe out any potential profit they can scam from consumers, which has proven to be enough to keep the worst of these actors out of the general marketplace (at least in countries that can muster good enforcement of such laws).

A market economy that does not enact such measures is a market economy that basically sanctions fraud. Because at the end of the day that is what false advertising boils down to; pure, simple, basic fraud. You say you will deliver one thing, then you knowingly and intentionally send the customer something else entirely, pocketing the difference in price-vs.-expectation for yourself.

I do not know about you, but I do not think an economy that sanctions naked fraud is one that will survive very long. Nearly all economic transactions require some base level of trust. Without that trust commerce will grind to a halt and violence will become the transactional medium of choice.

That's great but our consumer protection laws (along with every other kind of law) have gotten severely out of hand. Hardly anything you can buy doesn't have a Department of Whatever regulating the shet out of it. We've completely forgotten that laws are a last resort. Every law carries with it a threat of violence. Ignore a ticket (I don't recommend this) of any kind for long enough and men with guns will come to take you, by force if necessary, to see a judge. That's the way it should be if we have few enough laws, written simply enough that you can know when you are about to run afoul of them. But if you were to read all of the laws (city, state, and federal) surrounding each activity that you have planned for tomorrow, you'd be reading for a couple of years. It's an impossible situation. How is that OK?

 

[Nosferatu]

That's great but our consumer protection laws (along with every other kind of law) have gotten severely out of hand. Hardly anything you can buy doesn't have a Department of Whatever regulating the shet out of it. We've completely forgotten that laws are a last resort. Every law carries with it a threat of violence. Ignore a ticket (I don't recommend this) of any kind for long enough and men with guns will come to take you, by force if necessary, to see a judge. That's the way it should be if we have few enough laws, written simply enough that you can know when you are about to run afoul of them. But if you were to read all of the laws (city, state, and federal) surrounding each activity that you have planned for tomorrow, you'd be reading for a couple of years. It's an impossible situation. How is that OK?

And California says everything on the planet will give us cancer.

 

[Nosferatu]

I presume this is just a funny joke

Quite deductive there, Sherlock.

 

[CamoDeafie]

And California says everything on the planet will give us cancer.

California will give you cancer and mental illness

 

[Nosferatu]

California will give you cancer and mental illness

So far it's only given me the latter. Time will tell on the former.

 

[lucusloc]

That's great but our consumer protection laws (along with every other kind of law) have gotten severely out of hand. Hardly anything you can buy doesn't have a Department of Whatever regulating the shet out of it. We've completely forgotten that laws are a last resort. Every law carries with it a threat of violence. Ignore a ticket (I don't recommend this) of any kind for long enough and men with guns will come to take you, by force if necessary, to see a judge. That's the way it should be if we have few enough laws, written simply enough that you can know when you are about to run afoul of them. But if you were to read all of the laws (city, state, and federal) surrounding each activity that you have planned for tomorrow, you'd be reading for a couple of years. It's an impossible situation. How is that OK?

Oh I am not disagreeing with that. Over-regulations is as big a problem as under-regulation. The problem is people often pendulum-swing from one extreme to the other, when what we need is a healthy balance. For example, I do not need the government telling me how much my toilet can flush, I need proper consumer laws that state a manufacturer must accurately tell me how much their toilet flushes and then let me decide how big I want my water bill to be (we are going to ignore many municipalities issue's with subsidized water costs and market distortion for the sake of simplicity).

The problem here is we have two entity's laws interacting in ways detrimental to the end consumer; The U.S. by and large has too much regulation, and China has much too little. And our fearless leader's refusal to recognize that issue and impose import sanctions against China leads to a false sense of confidence for most of our consumers when buying junk from over there. China uses this as an effective transfer of wealth from us to them, using that consumer expectation to drastically over-charge for cheap goods unfit for the claimed service, and denying any kind of liability when the consumer demands recompense for the fraud. As stated above China only takes action when our leaders threaten actual sanctions that will impact the profitability of their exports.

This is not how to run a healthy economy.

 

[Flopsweat]

California will give you cancer and mental illness

California is cancer and mental illness.

 

[lucusloc]

Quite deductive there, Sherlock.

I knew I was right. I am damn smart aren't I?