Doug Jones wrote:
>
> Eugene Leitl wrote:
> >
> > James Rogers writes:
> >
> > > No, no, no...this won't do at all. While it is true that a claymore will
> > > frag any thief out to 100 meters or so in the operating direction ("This
> > > side facing enemy"), it also has a tendency to obliterate everything
> > > within about 15 meters in every direction. This can't possibly be a good
> > > thing for your car.
> >
> > But a price of a car is little price to pay for permanently removing
> > that particular agent from possible interactions in your personal
> > future.
> >
> > How about multiple-use? Active armor, for instance?
>
> Trouble is, carjackers have a bad habit of capping slow-reacting
> victims, or of taking female victims along for rape & murder. Stopping
> them at the door is a Good Thing. The first torch unit used in the US
> would land the user in jail, alas. Maybe if it followed the flames with
> a halon spray to put the perp out before letting him get totally
> toasted... but the prosecutors would probably still label it first
> degree arson.
AFAIK, the flames put out are not of high enough temperature or duration to
seriously burn someone unless they are dumb enough to stick around for repeated
shots. It seemed that when I heard about it, it would singe your hair, but thats
about it unless you got repeated shots. This flame thrower unit would be useful
and legal in Virginia, though, where they are rather lenient toward people
defending themselves against carjackkers.
I personally like the idea of a taser triggered by an alarm, that discharges
through the body of the car.
"PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE CAR..."
....
"OH, YOU WANT SOME HUH? HOW ABOUT THIS!"ZZZZAAAPPPPP
"AND HOW ABOUT SOME OF THIS?" ZZZAAAPPPP
>
> BTW, in my cab driving days I once had a belligerent passenger (standing
> behind the open left rear door) grab my left wrist as I reached back for
> the cash awkwardly offered from behind. He started to lift a weapon in
> his right hand (I never did see exactly what it was), so I threw the
> gearshift in reverse and ran him over with the door. If I'd thought
> just a bit faster I'd have cocked the wheel to my right to swing the
> front of the car over him, too. Asshole.
Driving over him once you could dismiss as an accident. If you changed gears and
went over him a second time, you might have some problems...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:03 MDT