Let me answer your first two questions right now; yes, you read that right and yes, I’m serious. In case you haven’t noticed, auto theft is on the rise and it shows little sign of slowing down. This is typically because our left-of-center friends would rather save the prison cells for violent offenders, and hence have eased up on enforcing laws involving property crime. Thus, to combat this worrying trend and to keep law-abiding American’s safe, I’d like to propose a pragmatic solution to these problems; the legalization of anti-theft car bombs. The idea centers around having a small explosive charge installed underneath the driver’s seat. The explosive charge would be triggered when certain criteria indicative of a theft in process are met. Remember to follow the current laws, even if you disagree with them.
First, the car alarm being set off followed by sudden acceleration and/or erratic driving (aggressive lane changes with no use of turn signal, driving into wrong-way traffic, etc) would set the charge to blow. We already have algorithms and devices offered by insurance companies that track this driving data, so I’m not re-inventing the wheel when I present this idea. As an additional failsafe, we can have a push notification on the car’s central terminal (a common practice with today’s systems such as Apple CarPlay) or a voice recognition program capable of confirming the identity of the driver to disarm the bomb. This can be achieved with either two-factor authentication or with the recital of a pre-recorded and unique passphrase. These are already common practices in the cybersecurity and home security industries (respectively), so thus there is no reason that these cannot be implemented in the auto industry. Additionally, if the car’s security system hypothetically detected an attempt to bypass the security features or the ignition (i.e. hotwiring), the bomb would also explode.
An important consideration will need to be the strength of the bomb itself. Ideally, there needs to be a Goldilocks Zone. The bomb needs to be hypothetically strong enough to serve as a deterrent to the criminal. That means that the bomb must be strong enough to seriously maim them and lead to very serious complications for the rest of the two-legged vermin’s lives (however shortened it may be). However, the bomb must not be too strong, as over-detonation can cause legal liabilities. After all, we need to punish the criminal, not the other motorists sitting in traffic. We additionally do not want to make bombs too powerful, lest they be used in acts of terrorism (i.e., some political radical steals a car and then drives it inside a government building circa 1995 Oklahoma City). However, if American arms manufacturers have proven to be anything over the decades, it is innovative (I sure as hell wasn’t going to say Natty!). Thus, this engineering dilemma is entirely solvable.
Much like my previous article on home defense landmines, a societal benefit to this idea would be lower recidivism. This is because the blast would likely kill the low-life scumbag trying to steal the vehicle. Assuming the criminal survives the blast, they would certainly be left permanently maimed by the security system; whether it would be by third-degree burns that envelop the body, multiple amputations, shrapnel, head trauma, spinal cord injuries, and more. Anyone of these would severely handicap one’s ability to commit future crimes and to resist arrest, doubly so if several of these conditions are present. In a very real way, anti-theft car bombs would make American streets safer from crime. With time, American prisons would gradually empty because of this, so this idea actually supports California’s stated reasons to not prosecute property crimes.
Car thieves, like home burglars, are rarely ever brought to justice in our current system. In some parts of the nation, arrest rates are pitifully low. However, anti-theft car bombs solve this problem as well. Much like in my article regarding home defense landmines, having one’s legs blown off would result in a ton of blood loss, which is a treasure trove of DNA evidence that can be used against the scumbag in court. Furthermore, it would be pretty easy to match an apprehended suspect to the crime in most cases; the guy covered with burns, impaled by shrapnel and missing a leg is probably the guy who tried to steal the car (remember: innocent until proven guilty). The only scenario in which this technology frankly doesn’t drive up the arrest and conviction rate of these walking disappointments would be the lowlife not surviving the attempted theft (is that really a bad thing?).
“But Dan” a triggered Karen would say “What makes you think this paper experiment of yours would actually work? There has never been a single society in which this idea has worked over multiple years!”. And that is where you are wrong, Karen. This idea has been tested with earth-shattering results, in none other than Ireland. Property crime in Ireland dropped like a lead balloon in the 1980’s, despite the IRA’s continued activity (and love of, you guessed it, car bombs) in the nation during that time. Ripples of Irish car bombs are still felt to this day; there’s a reason that post-Brexit UK does not include a hard Irish border. If car bombs were as ineffective as our beloved Karen claims, then the British would have no reason to make an Irish exception to their hardline border policies. But it hardly takes an Irish historian to figure out that only a fool is going to walk into something they know is a death-trap.
“But Dan” a pitchfork wielder will eventually protest “Having a literal bomb go off inside the car would total it. Did you ever think of that, you jackass?”. As a matter of fact, I have considered that fact. Guess what? For once the pitchfork wielder is actually right. However, and there is a however to this, four out of five stolen cars are never recovered, thus leading to insurance companies declaring them as total losses. So, the critique is basically moot. Congratulations on your hollow victory…
“But Dan” another protestor would say “What about the ER surgeons who would have to operate on the criminals? You’d be making their jobs harder!”. Cry me a fucking river…
As you may have noticed by now, my solutions do not require any new technology to be created. Like Mr. Kojima’s Soliton Radar, everything I’ve suggested is based on currently existing technology. Thus, legality, and not engineering, is the obstacle that stands in our way. Drunk Uncle Sam has no right to keep this technology out of the private sector, especially while West Coast police departments remain neutered to combat street crime as the government parades around its vast fleet of predator drones. Drunk Uncle Sam’s childish hoarding of explosives is handcuffing the U.S auto industry’s ability to innovate, and is thus hurting shareholders-which is a truly heinous crime. In fact, if elected to Washington, I’ll work tirelessly to abolish the socialized ATF and to repeal these exclusionary, archaic and crippling laws. It’s time to make thieves fear the consequences of their actions, and not rely on the taxpayer-funded justice system to act as the sole deterrent in doing so.
“Don’t you value the sanctity of these shitstains’ lives?”. No, I don’t. Stop asking.
Home Page 