Gun Safe Widespread Deceptive Advertising

🧽🫧Article Status Notice: This Article needs to be cleaned up

---

This article contains sources and content, but is lacking proper format and needs more development to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and provide a high quality and consistent experience for readers. Learn more ▼

Issues may include:

• The article is not following the correct outline for its subject (i.e. incident, company, product)
• This article contains references that do not utilize the <ref></ref> tags or Cite web template.
• The article has "WIP" mentioned next to content
• A quote longer than two sentences does not use the Quote template.

How you can help:

• Copy and paste the layout from the aforementioned preload templates (depending on the article's topic)
• Take URLs, convert them for the Cite web template, and insert them into the correct sentence where the source can verify a claim.
• Remove personal notes left by editors either with <!-- [text here] --> in source editor or when the article is close to being fully cleaned up.
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

Products referred to as "gun safes" are usually not "true safes" (UL 687), but "residential security containers" (UL 1037). The distinction comes from the certification/rating system established by Underwriter’s Laboratories, an independent testing company. This misleading language is just one of the multiple deceptive advertising practices used in the residential gun safe industry.

Background

Information about the product/service history to provide the necessary context surrounding the incident

---

Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.

Underwriter's Laboratories certifications available include (in ascending order of security levels): UL RSC Level I, UL RSC Level II, UL TL-15, UL TL-30, and UL TL-30x6. TLTR-variant ratings are also available. UL testing involves one or more people using specific sets of tools to gain physical access to a safe in a certain amount of time.

Other security ratings may be seen on products such as AmSec's B-Class and C-Class. AmSec claims the standards are set by the "insurance industry" but does not provide links to any published documentation that the consumer could use to verify what B-Class and C-Class actually mean. Additionally, unknown security ratings could be based on factors that do not have bearing in real-life scenarios that the consumer expects their product to perform. (Example: AmSec's product NARCO3824 is B-Class and the product description uses phrases like "it’s extremely difficult to break in or tamper with". However, NARCO3824 is 11 gauge steel which can be cut with handheld tools.)

The existence of a "rating" or "standard" does not guarantee a product's performance. The Titanic's lifeboats were "to regulation", yet ~1,500 people still lost their lives. It is up to the consumer to understand what a product's claim actually means, and how that affects the attributes the consumer wants for a product.

Companies Affected

• Liberty Safe
• Cannon Safe
• Browning Safes
• American Security
• Winchester Safes
• Remington (is it just Remington? Can not find a website that is not a brand licensee)
• Stack-On
• Cabela's

[Incident]

Change this section's title to be descriptive of the incident.

Impartial and complete description of the events, including actions taken by the company, and the timeline of the incident coming to the public's attention.

---

Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.

Incidents to expand on:

• Fire rating (self-certification, fire-safe does not mean heat/steam/firehose safe)
• Performative features (internal hinges, showy linkage, fancy descriptions of bad locks)
• Detrimental features (door gaps, handle location, electronics, moisture-absorbing material, etc.)
• Made in America=assembled in America which obfuscates the quality of parts (usually the locks)
• Deceptive gun # capacity
• Detrimental or poor features presented as positives (door handle location, gauge thickness)
• Containers with security so poor that it cannot withstand a theft attack from a child (amazon desk safes)
  

ToDo:

• Embed side-by-side snapshots? (snapshot the fire-rating of a product from the company's website, next to a picture of that safe with rusted-out guns inside from surviving a fire)
• Link to the Liberty Safe article on consumerrights.wiki
• Create a guide about how to navigate the above incidents?

Key Takeaway

Industry-wide advertising practices mislead the consumer into thinking safes perform better than they actually do.

Further Reading

Safe comparison guide/web-guide on physical asset security:

• Honest Gun Safe Reviews

Videos of people breaking into safes:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JmnG9R9S_k
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_WCg0KEiyI

Related consumerrights.wiki articles:

• Liberty Safe
• Ring

References

Add a category with the same name as the product, service, website, software, product line or company that this article is about.

The "Incidents" category is not needed.

---

Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.