search
top

Carjacking Hi-End SUVs

There was a carjacking in Ambler the other day, which is five minutes from where I work. I drive through that town every day. I’m happy the Philadelphia Police have caught these guys, because they were dangerous individuals. A lot of folks ask why I carry a firearm, and this is it. I worry about Philadelphia’s crime problem traveling into the suburbs, and it’s bound to happen. I worry not so much because I could be a target, but because suburban folks reaction won’t just be “Man, I need to think about protecting myself.” They might join in the delusion promulgated by our media culture that we can take guns away from criminals if we pass Just One More LawTM

Eric has more. Apparently the woman who was a victim in Havertown, which was the same carjacking ring, managed to get the gun away from the carjacker and shoot him. I didn’t even know that, because the press here didn’t mention it. My advice to people in the Philadelphia suburbs worried about car jacking is twofold. One, it’s better to have your own firearm than have to take your attacker’s first. Two, your car is a much more effective weapon than any firearm.  If they catch you while driving, don’t be afraid to plow the bastards down.

8 Responses to “Carjacking Hi-End SUVs”

  1. gattsuru says:

    If they catch you while driving, don’t be afraid to plow the bastards down.

    But it’s only property

    Snark aside, do be aware of the legal and physical results of doing so. Running someone over with a car makes it very difficult to prove that the threat was impossible to avoid, and while the vehicle offers a surprising amount of protection against small caliber fire, most of the time it’s also difficult to get the proper vector.

    Use both.

  2. kaveman says:

    I’ve also seen prototype anti car-jacking systems which is a small propane tank under the car and several outlet jets pointed up at a 45 degree angle from just below both car doors. Someone tries to get in either door? Press a button and make a crispy critter.

    Fight fire with fire.

  3. Sebastian says:

    Carjacking is a violent crime. It’s not about the property.

  4. GunGeek says:

    When I lived in Yuppie City, CA (okay, it was really Folsom) most people there thought they were oh-so-safe because of the quality of the people in their little town.

    What I saw was a lot of burglaries and car break-ins and car thefts by people coming in from just a handful of miles away. They know where the good stuff is. No point in trying to steal from the poor folks. Duh.

    The crooks actually had a lot shorter commute than I did.

  5. Do you remember in the 1970s when the big concern wasn’t carjacking, but auto theft? The car makers got a LOT better at making cars hard to steal. The net effect? It turned car thieves in carjackers. They replaced a felonious property crime with a felonious personal crime–robbery. Be careful what you wish for.

    On the other hand, there’s some evidence that shall-issue had the opposite effect–of encouraging at least the smarter criminals to switch from robbery to property crimes. (The really smart criminals, of course, run for Congress.)

    If carjacking was just about property, it would be irritating. When someone uses the threat of violence to compel you to hand over valuables, they have just stated that they consider your property worth more than your life. Fine. By application of the transitive property, the criminal has told me that my car is therefore worth more than the criminal’s life. I am therefore free, by the criminal’s own value system, to kill him to retain my property.

    I don’t normally keep a handgun on me when driving because we just don’t have those kinds of crimes in this part of Idaho. But if it gets to that point, I’ll be carrying. I’ll get out of the car–and while they are trying to figure out how to put it in drive, they will be given a choice of submitting to arrest or submitting to something a lot more permanent.

  6. BadIdeaGuy says:

    Clayton’s post just aptly desbribed human nature as it relates to crime and technological advancement better than I ever could, but I guess working chronologically backwards from your other posts, I’m pretty sure that for these offenders, John Edwards would classify US citizenship as a “right” instead of “privilege”.

  7. BadIdeaGuy says:

    OK, derrrr, chronologically in the order I read them, not as posted… By the way, there is something nice about Fosters’ “oil cans”.

  8. For the record, cars don’t provide much cover against gunfire, not even small-caliber.
    http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot3.htm

    Only the engine block will stop a decent cartridge, and the windshield will stop low caliber rounds, but even .22’s will fly through the side windows without much inconvenience, doors aren’t much better.

    The more you know …
    … could save your life.

top