Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)
Previous Post
Next Post

It’s an all too common refrain. Every time a criminal or a wacko (or a criminal wacko) kills someone using a firearm, every branch of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex jumps into action and cries out in unison that the problem, of course, is the guns.

If only guns were outlawed, their “reasoning” goes, outlaws wouldn’t have guns. The logic seems so clear. Never mind the delusionally utopian absurdity of thinking that a government that’s been fighting spectacularly expensive and unsuccessful wars on drugs and poverty for the last 60-plus years can somehow make over 400 million firearms go away. Or legislate them out of existence.

The People of the Gun have a simple, rote retort to that kind of lazy stupidity…guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Neither side is about to change many minds, so it’s a battle that will continue ad infinitum, no matter how many crimes are prevented and lives saved by the lawful use of civilian-owned firearms every year.

Given the fact that the Gun Control Industry™ is and has been losing this battle for a couple of decades now, they’ve tried some new tacks in their desperate attempts to make gun ownership more difficult and expensive. One of which is to sue the makers and sellers of guns and ammunition after high profile shootings. No matter how regulated the industry may already be and the extent to which any particular transaction complied with every applicable law, attorneys — usually backed by the gun control orgs — try to sue everyone involved.

The People of the Gun have a retort for this, too, pointing out that going after a gun manufacturer is like suing the maker of spoons for making people fat. Or suing the maker of a car when it’s involved in a drunk driving accident.

Now, in the latest news of the devolution of civil society, it now apparently makes legal sense — to some great minds, anyway — to sue the makers of cars that are frequently being stolen. And it probably shouldn’t surprise you to learn that this novel, groundbreaking approach is being pioneered in Chicago.

From the Sun-Times . . .

The city of Chicago sued Kia and Hyundai on Thursday, alleging the South Korean automakers have fueled a “car theft crisis” by failing to install standard technology they knew was effective at deterring thieves. 

The companies failed to use the anti-theft technology for years, leading to a spike in thefts that was driven by a viral trend showing just how easy it was to swipe their cars, according to the lawsuit filed in Cook County.

The number of car thefts has more than doubled in Mogadishu on Lake Michigan year over year and the Sun-Times reports that about half of the cars stolen were Kias and Hyundais. So the design of the the Korean cars may well be less than ideal. But isn’t the real story here the people who are, you know, stealing the cars? Aren’t they the ones the city should be focusing on here?

Chicago sues Kia Hyundai over stolen cars
The city of Chicago considers this a manufacturing defect.

Oh, wait. We forgot. Chicago is a big blue city that’s dominated by “progressive” politics including an ongoing re-think of its criminal justice system. The city’s Soros-backed prosecutor is so far left that even she has decided to head for the exit rather than run for reelection and try to defend the indefensible (her record).

Then again, Chicago voters just made a very clear choice at the ballot box. They had the option of choosing a candidate who campaigned on restoring some semblance of law and order in a city ravaged by four years under a feckless, failed mayor, and another candidate who thought that what the the City of Big Shoulders needs most is to lurch even further to the left and excuse even more criminality.

And that, dear reader, is how you get a decision to sue a couple of auto makers in a city that’s racked by crime rather than trying to hold the people who are actually stealing their products responsible.

While no one in the gun industry is likely to voice the sentiment, we don’t have to be as reticent about saying these kinds of things out loud. So to Kia and Hyundai…welcome to the party, pals. This is what it’s liked to be blamed when your products are stolen, abused, misused, and involved in crimes for which you were in no way involved or responsible.

This is the pass we’ve come to in American politics. We no longer blame and incarcerate criminals for breaking even the most basic and common-sense laws. Instead, we blame those who make and sell the products those criminals desire, steal and use to break the law.

And so it goes.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. We’ll see how far this goes. My guess is that it will get quite a bit of traction to start but will eventually end up in the ditch.

    Hyundai/Kia do bear some responsibility here, although I don’t believe that their actions are actionable. The manufacturer failed to include ignition immobilizers, a small inexpensive addition to the steering column interlock, in its lowest-trim and lowest-cost (also some of its most popular) models from 2012 to 2020 — this while they did install them in the mid- to upper-line vehicles. 96% of all vehicle models sold in the US that year included immobilizer technology.

    The result is that the rash of break-ins and thefts disproportionately affect the low-income buyers, the group that has the least resources to absorb losses and could be the most dependent on their cars. A $500 insurance deductible is no small potatoes to these folks.

    However, Hyundai’s decision to save a couple bucks on each vehicle is now costing and will continue to cost the manufacturer, in lost sales, lost reputation and increased insurance rates on their models, not to mention the service and retrofit costs for corrective work being performed at the dealerships.

    (I’ve helped my sister with this situation on her 2017 Tucson. Hyundai had to reimburse her for towing and rental costs [she has a basic insurance policy without those additional coverages], and reprogrammed the ECU to accept a keyfob transmitter and updated software to allow immobilization of the ignition with the new fob. The fob alone retails for nearly $200 and one hour of service labor ($135) to program it.)

    I’m not saying that this waives responsibility of the vandals and thieves who precipitated the crisis with their criminal acts.

    • “failing to install standard technology they knew was effective at deterring thieves.” This should not be a responsibility at all. It is slippery reasoning that can be pushed ad infinitum.

      When thieves inevitably regularly bypass the newer technology, will car makers be held responsible to increase the difficulty again? Maybe a smartphone app and account? You see how far this can/will go? We can finally have cars-as-a-service. What a wonderful utopia!

      To put it another way… Should you be held responsible for break-ins to your house because your windows don’t have bars? Because your walls don’t have steel reinforcement? Because your house isn’t a maximum security prison? Where does this reasoning end and why should it even start? The responsible persons must start and end with the thief(s). Nobody else.

      • Repeating:

        “I’m not saying that this waives responsibility of the vandals and thieves who precipitated the crisis with their criminal acts.”

        • Repeating:

          ‘Hyundai/Kia do bear some responsibility here”.

          No, they don’t. Neither does the buyer for buying a car without this device. The clothing manufacturer who made those sexy clothes worn by the woman who was raped does not bear any responsibility for her rape either, even though the rapist said they made her irresistible-neither does the woman based on her choice of clothing.

    • Sorry charlie but pointing one finger at Hyundai because of this or that is neither here nor there when car thieves steal all sorts of makes, models and production years of vehicles. If you are inclined to hold Hyundai responsible for what a criminal does then should a criminal break into your locked vehicle or home and steals your firearm and hijacks a vehicle and murders someone then hold yourself responsible just like you want to hold Hyundai responsible. Careful what you fall for.

      • “If you are inclined to hold Hyundai responsible for what a criminal does …”

        Is poor reading comprehension a requirement for some of you to post here?

        I’m holding Hyundai responsible for what Hyundai did.

        • No, you’re saying Hyundai bears responsibility because they didn’t equip the car models in question with enough anti-theft hardware to meet your satisfaction.

          That’s like saying a home manufacturer is responsible for a criminal’s decision to enter a home and rob it of its valuables because he was able to easily overcome the front door’s lock, and you state the door should have had a more robust lock because the home mfr should have known that thief would have been able to defeat the original lock.

          Criminals are responsible for their actions.

    • @Man,

      “Hyundai/Kia do bear some responsibility here…”

      Nonsense. Do not even attempt to convince anyone those companies are responsible for the actions of criminals.

      • I didn’t. I specifically pointed out that Hyundai is responsible for their own actions.

        “That’s like saying a home manufacturer is responsible for a criminal’s decision to enter a home and rob it of its valuables because he was able to easily overcome the front door’s lock …”

        No. I’m saying that Hyundai made a decision not to equip its cars with the immobilizer technology that they themselves were using in their other models, and that which was being utilized by manufacturers on 96% of the entire universe of car models being released in the US at that time.

        ” …and you state the door should have had a more robust lock because the home mfr should have known that thief would have been able to defeat the original lock.”

        In this case, Hyundai did know that the standard keyed ignition offered little-to-no protection against a common type of auto theft but decided to use it anyway, to save a few bucks. Cracking a steering column was common in the ’80s and ’90s on GM cars and others that used the same design. It’s an easy technique that juvenile street thieves were teaching to each other — today’s version uses TikTok to spread the knowledge, but the weakness has long been known to auto manufacturers. GM put a virtual stop to it by including a resistor chip in the key stem paired with a receiver in the ignition switch.

        (Disclosure: 32 years in the biz as an auto damage appraiser, 3 of those as an auto theft specialist, several more as a claims analyst; IICAR certified and Tech Cor trained.)

        • I’m not quite sure if you realize how your comments continue to prove that you actually *are* placing blame on Kia/Hyundai for this situation, instead of the thieves themselves. I remain firm in my earlier analogy of the house and its door locks. A person who chooses to commit a crime is the sole person responsible for the act. To say that Hyundai, for example, bears any blame for a thief’s action because Hyundai made a business decision to equip one of its particular car models in a certain way is boggling.

          (Disclosure: my 30+ years in automotive technician training, engineering, and security systems, currently employed as top management of CIS/Security for two entities)

    • Not near as many cars were stolen when you stuck the key in a hole in the dash and stepped on the starter switch located on the floorboard. Didnt take nothing to hotwire that setup yet the rash of stolen cars was lower then today.
      Perhaps .giv should just give away free cars.
      Chargers for dope dealers and mini Van’s for who my daddy baby momas

    • The car industry is rife with petty cost cutting.

      It is said that a $5 increase results in an executive management meeting where someone gets fired.

  2. Yup, the sign of extreme pandering and cowardice……..go after the maker of the implement the miscreant uses! RETROACTIVE ABORTION!!

  3. They’ll settle out of court, offer a recall/refit for affected vehicles, make sure all new vehicles have it, and raise prices accordingly, which will probably price out a segment of low income purchases rendering them pedestrians. All in all it will be a win for Chicago which they will then use to brow beat gun makers and sellers in the media.

    • The class action lawsuits are coming. Sure, Hyundai will settle. But it will cost them — big time. It already has, and it will continue to do so.

      “…offer a recall/refit for affected vehicles …”

      A service campaign rather than a government-mandated recall, but yes, they are doing that, as I explained.

      “… make sure all new vehicles have it …”

      Which they have done since 2021, as all auto manufacturers have — but Hyundai was late to the party.

      “… and raise prices accordingly, which will probably price out a segment of low income purchases rendering them pedestrians.”

      Nuh-uh. The cost to include this feature is minimal and would more than be recovered in sales volume. It wouldn’t raise the list price of the car, and most cars are sold at less than MSRP.

      • Hyundai? Hungry? Eat your foreign car🙄🤪SEE: My last post about Chiraq. I remember 30 years ago I was selling insurance(Prudential)and my supervisor had a Hyundai. Falling apart from the get go. Their cheaper. They’ll get around to anti-theft some day😀

        • When they first entered the US market in 1986, the cars were pretty much a joke. I had to declare one a total loss after it ran over a concrete parking lot barrier — one of those square things they set at the front of a parking space to prevent your car from going forward.

          The customer hit it pretty hard — it buckled the unibody structure from the floor pan to the roof. Unrepairable.

          But they learned and increased their quality, content, and service. Today I’d place Hyundai as nearly on par with most of the Japanese makes.

        • “When they first entered the US market in 1986, the cars were pretty much a joke.”

          Starting a car company from zero is tough, so what Hyundai did was buy Mitsubishi Motors last generation of car tooling they no longer needed.

          And yeah, the first few generations sucked. But they made a bad decision in cheaping out by not including basic anti-theft technology, and I thing they should get sued over it, because those most affected are those least able to afford getting their cars stolen… 🙁

        • Lemme get this straight, man with no aim. You’re considering that the problem today can be traced back 30+ YEARS!!

        • EdP. – Maybe longer than that. “Hot-wiring” was a thing in the ’30s and ’40s. Ask Clyde Barrow.

      • Aim,
        Do a quick search for “Thieves are now stealing cars via a headlight ‘CAN injection'”

        Yep. Attach a box to the CANBUS system, spoof codes, and POOF!

        • Stuck — I’m familiar. It’s not easy to do, requires pulling the front fender liner and accessing the system through a conveniently-placed junction in the front wiring harness — which coincidentally, several Hyundai models seem to share. Plus you need a “box.”

          It’s a variation on a theme that’s been playing out since the first car was invented. Automaker tries to prevent theft. Thief thinks up a new way to steal it. Rinse, repeat.

          If a professional thief really wants your car, they can get it, and there’s nothing you can do. But that situation is usually rare and more often confined to valuable and/or exotic cars, not daily driven beaters.

          The thing about the ignition interlock is — it prevents the casual smash-and-grabber from getting away with your vehicle. Anything that slows down or impedes the amateur will make it more likely that he’ll give up and move to an easier target. Car thieves usually canvass the neighborhood looking for cars that are unlocked and often have the leys left in them (even hide-a-keys which the thief knows might be hidden in certain areas).

  4. From this article:

    Neither side is about to change many minds, so it’s a battle that will continue ad infinitum …

    That is correct. And the reason is simple: a HUGE percentage of the population operates on emotion and greed. Said people will always “wander off into the weeds” and pursue objectives which are destructive to others and society (and even themselves oftentimes).

    You have been warned. Prepare accordingly.

    • Additional warning:

      Said people who operate on emotion and greed frequently have little if any standards of wrong-versus-right. When such a person has few if any internal restraints, he/she has a significant advantage over decent people who do have internal restraints. Why? Because he/she is willing to carry out unspeakable acts to provide the necessary incentive for their opponent (a decent person who is EXTREMELY reluctant to respond in-kind) to yield.

      That is why Germany’s Third Reich was able to come to power and proceeded to exterminate millions of people.

      A wise person observed and stated, “It isn’t the strongest group that usually comes to power–it is the most ruthless group that usually comes to power.”

      • “…people who operate on emotion and greed frequently have little if any standards of wrong-versus-right. When such a person has few if any internal restraints, he/she has a significant advantage over decent people who do have internal restraints.”

        Unfortunately, true. As you stated, prepare accordingly.

  5. ¿Por qué no los dos?

    Sue to fix the faulty design and lock the criminals up or are we still pretending Sig doesn’t have a problem with the p320 like Remington didn’t have a problem with the 700 because of bad car design?

    • Both,

      I do not see an equivalency between the defective trigger designs which you referenced and the car designs.

      The defective triggers can actuate when those particular firearms impact a hard surface at minimal velocity–e.g. when someone drops those particular firearms which is a somewhat common and expected occurrence.

      The referenced vehicles, on the other hand, do not unlock the doors and start the engine when someone smacks the vehicle. Rather, a thief has to break the windows or doors, break the steering column, and then break a component to start the car.

      If someone had to break the stock on a firearm, break the receiver, and then break the trigger sear before the firearm would discharge unintentionally after a minimal velocity impact with a hard surface, would that be a design flaw? Nope.

      • “I do not see an equivalency between the defective trigger designs which you referenced and the car designs.”

        You, sir, “get it.”

        It’s not a “design flaw” or “defect” — it’s a cost-saving decision by the manufacturer. And a poor one at that.

        • Man – it might have been a poor cost saving decision but that does NOT relieve the car thief of the ultimate responsibility for their career choice. Even if someone leaves the keys in their car it is still the thief that is to blame.
          Same applies to guns – just ask Val Demings or that fed whose gun was used to murder Kate Steinle.
          I’ll stipulate that owners/manufacturers shouldn’t make it easy for thieves but where do we draw the line? Maybe there ought to be a law requiring us to take the wheels off our cars when we park them.

        • “Man – it might have been a poor cost saving decision but that does NOT relieve the car thief of the ultimate responsibility for their career choice. Even if someone leaves the keys in their car it is still the thief that is to blame.”

          Agreed, Gomez, and I haven’t said otherwise. I used to hear an old wives’ tale that auto insurance would not cover the loss if the owner had left the keys in the car. That’s false — as you stated, it’s still a theft.

          We had a saying in the industry, “Stupidity is a covered peril.”

  6. The Far Right are perhaps the most paranoid and ignorant people on earth. They focus on solutions “AFTER THE FACT”. It does the victims of gun violence or car theft do good at all “after the fact” but “preventing car thefts or gun violence is something any sane person can fathom.

    • Congratulations! Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that we’re discussing.

      • Well he got to throw ignorant and far right into the same sentence so that’s a win for dacian. I’m kinda disappointed he couldn’t work HillJack in there somehow

        • He hasn’t said Jethros in a while.

          But to lil’d personal automobile ownership and usage would be restricted to good party members who can prove a genuine need.

    • The best way to prevent gang/thug violence is to be prepared in advance. [I am sick and tired of hearing about “gun violence” because guns never attack anyone. Bats, knives, hammers and other items can be used for evil attacks or defense, but an equalizer is the most effective and most concealable tool for stopping evil attacks. If the evil party just thinks/knows you have one, they will generally leave you alone! Thankfully we have the 2nd Amendment in my beloved USA!] About 50% of us have equalizers. But, those are the more intelligent among us who think ahead and want the best tools possible to protect our children [those who have them should always carry them IMHO], other loved ones, and ourselves. If my loved ones and/or I are not directly threatened, I will run away and leave the unprepared to their poorly planned fate.

    • Dac-a-LibIdiot..

      Guns aren’t violent. People are.

      “…paranoid and ignorant people on earth.”

      Yeah, right. /s

      “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

      Why is it that libidiots like you never seem to learn that principle?

      It’s easily proven by examining what happens to the various destinations of the migration of people from socialist liberal shit-holes like Califruticake, New York Shitty, The Peoples Repubelik of Pugetopia and other ‘blue holes’ of despair and desolation.

      They crapped in their collective beds by voting in fellow liberal socialist morons, can’t take it anymore and move to what were nice places like Denver, Missoula, Austin, etc. and bring their failed ideas and voting habits along for the ride, with predictable results.

      Inevitably, their voting in people of similar thought processes, (again,) results in higher crime rates, increased homelessness, increased taxation, failures of businesses because of increased idiotic regulations, urban blight, etc.

      It happens 100% of the time.

      Stay the phuck in your crap filled bed along with your fellow libidiots and leave the rest of us alone.

      /kicks soapbox back into the corner…

    • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. Sorry but there is NO SUCH thing as “gun violence”. A gun being an inanimate object is incapable of any actions. Even a Leftist like yourself you should know this.
      Your solution of banning firearms is ludicrous on its face due to the fact that there is NO WAY that could ever happen. You see we have this thing call the 2nd Amendment?
      The fact is you Leftists refuse to do anything about the REAL PROBLEM. Criminals and mentally ill people.

  7. As long as the people of Chicago continue to vote in nut job leftists, there will always be craziness there.

    • How do you know they are being voted in? The donks control the system. And that is always a disaster.

      • We don’t have any evidence any election ever was legit. Our elections, like our money, operate on faith. We just take it for granted the system is honorable and honest but with so much evidence over the decades of how dishonorable and dishonest our government has been why do we still hold some segments of it as poured and incorruptible?

        There’s no reason to believe we’ve ever had a real election other than faith and plenty of reasons to believe we haven’t.

        It’s all one big shared delusion.

        • Chicago has no honor.

          I have no doubt its rigged in favor of the left over there. I don’t see any seriousness from the populous in that city against the left. There might be pockets of sanity here and there but nothing of any significance.

        • The electoral district boundaries are gerrymandered to hell and back again. The GOP has no chance of winning in such an environment. I would be surprised if they even ran candidates.

          A perfect example of dacian’s one-party rule.

  8. This is “if these women weren’t drinking and dressing slutty they wouldn’t get raped!” tier reasoning from Chicago

  9. Chicago News Crew covering robberies, and others robbed, at gun point. Brandon Johnson avoided questions about it and called to defund police instead ’cause basically ‘racism’ and says the pandemic was ‘structural racism’ (The nuts are truly running the asylum that is Chicago)

  10. Understand that criminals are a necessary evil for liberalism and progressiveism to advance their agendas. Criminals are the equivalent of the ‘Brown Shirts’ used by the Nazi’s for further their form of Fascism. You deserve the Tyranny and Tyrants…You Allow. The choice is yours. Live as a Subject of the government or live as a Free citizen in control of the government. Choose Wisely.

    • “Understand that criminals are a necessary evil for liberalism and progressiveism to advance their agendas.”

      Yep, its one of the first stages of enacting a complete dictatorship – its the stage referred to as an ‘anacro-tyranny’. Its basically the Hitler playbook.

      Samuel Francis first coined the term “anarcho-tyranny” in a 1994 essay titled Anarcho-Tyranny, U.S.A., summarized as:

      “A concept where the state is more interested in controlling citizens so that they don’t oppose managerial class, rather than tending to real criminals. Laws are argued to be enforced selectively depending on what is beneficial to the ruling elite.”

      But the term its self is a contradiction of political system descriptors, as anarchy and tyranny occupy diametrically opposite ends of the government force continuum as we understand them as they are suppose to be. However, the ‘ruling elite’ take advantage of it to let the anarchy continue so they can impose more and more ‘control’ supposedly to quell the anarchy. In reality they are using it to impose more and more control over the citizens as a whole by use of ‘policy’ and ‘laws’. One major step in this is disarming the populace so they can’t resist the on coming tyranny.

      Hitler used the ‘Brown Shirts’ to create the anarchy, then created more policy and laws to quell the ‘anarchy’ then focused the public attention on an ‘enemy’ namely the Jews, then disarmed the populace. For example ….

      Disarmament of the German Jews >

      “The legal foundations that the Nazi Party later used for the purpose of disarming the Jews were already laid during the Weimar Republic. Starting with the Reichsgesetz über Schusswaffen und Munition (Reich law on firearms and ammunition), enacted on 12 April 1928, weapon purchase permits were introduced, which only allowed “authorized persons” the purchase and possession of firearms. Mandatory registration of weapons was introduced, which gave the government the opportunity of accessing weapon owner and their weapons at any given time. Manufacture and sale of weapons was only permitted if authorized so. The purpose was to ensure that firearms were only issued to “reliable individuals”. Starting in 1930, bladed weapons were also regulated. The carrying of weapons in public now required a weapons permit. …

      In early 1930s Germany, few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms, the Weimar Republic having strict gun control laws. When the Nazi party gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened for Nazi party members only. The laws were tightened in other ways, such as specifically banning ownership of guns by Jews. Nazi laws systematically disarmed so-called “unreliable” persons, especially Jews while relaxing restrictions for Nazi party members. The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries. …

      Immediately following the “Machtergreifung” in 1933, the weapon laws of the Weimar Republic were used to disarm Jews, or to use the excuse of “searching for weapons” as a justification for raids and searches of homes. ”

      • “The carrying of weapons in public now required a weapons permit.”

        If anyone recalls, a few years ago in 2018 a man in Scotland was arrested and charged with illegal weapons possession for carrying a potato peeler. The modern-day UK has nearly all the highly restrictive gun/knife/weapon laws you mentioned above that Nazi Germany enforced.

        And when was that law passed? 23 years earlier in 1995.

        • That is oddly reminiscent of feudal Japan as well.

          The Ruling Class–attempting to disarm the working class in order to consolidate wealth and power for the Ruling class.

          Since 1995, er since 1933, uh make that 1928, nope since 1903, hmm must be 1865, or was it since feudal Japan in 1200, blah how about SINCE FOREVER!.

        • “That is oddly reminiscent of feudal Japan as well.”

          It should be be. Its happened in every tyranny in man kinds history. The Japan and the UK and all of the gun ban countries in Europe, are in state of a modern day version of feudal tyranny today and slowly moving towards a communist dictatorship regime (if not already there like Russia). Its only the window dressing facade put up for the world view and controlling the flow of information and the overall society (directly or indirectly) in the countries that provide what the world sees and their own people see. Its why say UK Albert from the UK can’t grasp the concept of what an inherent natural right is because the UK has raised generation after generation used to what the government gave and called a right.

          Its why Miner49er and dacian can’t grasp the concept of what an inherent natural tight is, they were raised in homes that practiced the concepts of socialism tyranny in which people have a ‘collective’ participation concept rather than rights as natural and inherent. Notice how Miner49ers past arguments about the 2A being somehow a ‘collective’ right in terms of militia and not an inherent natural individual right, the ‘collective’ concept is a socialist concept.

        • We also know what happened to the brown shirts. It was called “The Night of the Long Knives”.

          And the USSR had the great purges starting in the late 1930s.

    • Dark,
      The only real silver lining I can see in the ‘defund the cops’ movement is when the Antifa/Brownshirts start really getting thumped and yelling to ‘call the police,’ there won’t be anyone available to ‘protect’ them from a thoroughly pissed off public..

      • Law enforcement protects the criminals.
        As my uncle said years ago ,” Its time for the vigilante to ride.”

    • Understand that criminals are a necessary ASSET for liberalism and progressive-ism to advance their agendas. FIFY

  11. Since cities do not regulate car manufacturers, while states and the feds do, I have to question whether any city has any legal standing to sue, or has suffered any damages arising from the defect.

    • I agree, that is the question. IMO, the car owners who have suffered actual damages (thefts, vandalism, increased insurance rates) have a good cause for a class-action suit and several are already being prepared.

      • Yes, but the way class-action suits are rigged, it’s the *lawyers* who will walk away with the majority of the cash payout. There really needs to be some judicial reform to make sure those hurt by those cheap bastards get most of the relief.

        How many times have seen things where a lawsuit results in a payout for the little guy of a few dollars and the lawyers a few hundred MILLION?

        • Geoff — amen.

          We also need to institute the “loser pays” system in this country. But that’ll never happen — it’s against the financial interests of the legal profession.

  12. those cars makers should be more focused on their exploding engines——-
    will the auto makers have to due something?
    do you drive a vehicle with a back up camera?
    great idea, but the reason they came about was that a mom forget(?) to check for her child, and while the child was playing behind the vehicle, the mom backed up, killing the child—-the mother’s excuse was that the vehicle was ‘too big, and she could not see behind it while backing up’—–it was the vehicle makers fault was the lawsuit, but it was thrown out, with the above compromise had to become standard equipment

  13. I get this may be unpopular, but just because you hate statist gun control doesn’t mean you should have to defend predatory mega-corporations. Especially ones that knowingly ignore significant security flaws in their products to save pennies.

    Whether it’s big government or big business, bureaucracy and the elite will find ways to leech value from average Americans. Two sides of the same evil.

    So screw KIA. They undoubtedly knew their cars would be targeted if this design flaw was known. They knew their customers (often poorer folks) were at risk. And they still cranked out sloppy jalopies for almost a decade. All to save a tiny, tiny fraction of added profit.

    Ideally, their court fees could help pay for the cops needed to clamp down on their screw-up, but we all know that won’t happen either way.

  14. The number of people attached to their cars far exceeds the number attached to their guns. Car theft negatively affects their lives more strongly than gun theft. They blame the thief rather than the car manufacturer for building a car vulnerable to theft. This is just another example of refusal to hold the criminal responsible for his crimes.

  15. And now, boys and girls, a demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences:

    1) Hyundai and Kia start making their cars effectively impossible to steal without the car’s key or key fob.

    2) Thieves are no longer able to “smash and grab” while the car owner is away.

    3) Thieves resort to violent robberies and carjackings.

    4) Violent crime rate against innocent victims increases.

    5) More innocent victims injured or murdered.

    6) Hyndai’s and Kia’s security upgrades actually cause injuries/deaths that would not have otherwise occurred.

    • That’s real possibility. Good thing thanks to Bruen, people will be able to administer some “Insta-Jusctice” ™. 🙂

  16. Back when cars were easier to steal nobody ever heard of a ‘carjacking’. So be careful what you wish for.

    • Nope — we’ve had carjackings since cars have been in existence. Most were crimes of opportunity, as they still are today. The most typical scenarios involve someone leaving their car running with the keys in the ignition while they run into the mini-mart or dry cleaners; a thief takes note or is lying in wait, jumps behind the wheel and …

      Most carjackings are non-violent.

      “The carjackings that typically get reported in the media tend to be disproportionately violent, disproportionately graphic, because those kinds of stories generate eyeballs, and eyeballs generate ratings, which mean profit. You’ve got to be very careful not to suggest that those events are representative of the broader universe of carjackings.

      “Carjackings are very, very rarely fatal — in the tenths of a percent. And they very rarely involve serious victim injury: Only 1 percent of victims are hospitalized.” —

      • Down here, the cops in the bad part of town run stings with cars with remote kill switches.

        Harried individual dashes into mini-mart, waiting thug jumps in car, down the street the car dies and lots of flashing lights happen, and a dozen guns get pointed at surprised car thief… 🙂

        • Geoff PR,

          Now THAT is proactive policing at its finest.

          Our nation needs a LOT more of that and a lot LESS of going after decent people for procedural “violations”.

        • Wasn’t there a TV series called “Bait Car?”

          My new favorite show is “Parking Wars” reruns on the free channel.

  17. All automakers have completely convinced themselves of the extreme need for so over the top technology that they have forgotten all about making cars. A large part of this comes from public demand. A huge part comes from government demand.

    It has NOTHING to do with fuel economy. Its about being about to track, trace, monitor, and control. It’s what everyone on every side wants though. People’s ID’s get stolen because of the same foolishness.

    • I drive an old car that doesn’t have any Sirus capability, On Star. Who would want to own a car that can be shut down from outerspace?
      Not me, if sht hits the fan I want to be able to drive through it.
      Mercy me EV, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

      • Oh and yeah, if I’d have been wearing a seat belt I’d have drowned when my truck decided to go swimming in the river
        Seatbelt laws, why aren’t helmets required too? Racecar drivers wear them.

      • Possum,
        Yep. My last ditch is a aftermarket turbo’d 1987 Ford F250 with a MECHANICALLY injected diesel.

        Will run on damn near anything with a decent cetane rating, and no electronics..

    • Yes, it does sound like it should be a Babylon Bee story. Ya can’t make this stuff up for reality so it must be some weird parody or joke. Sadly though, this is reality – the nuts are running the asylum that is Chicago.

      I expect next that Brandon will have his own public execution square to speed things up when he tires of indirectly killing off the citizens a few at a time.

  18. I like the game of Chess.
    South Korean imports support South Korea.
    The lawsuit may be more then we think.

  19. These auto makers have deep pockets and are a small number of targets. The “Kia boys” do not. That’s why they’re getting sued.

    Stupid people think you can technology or law your way into honesty. It doesn’t work that way.

    I hope that discovery is run and a counter suit is made that comes out victorious and more importantly leads to the release of documents that will ultimately shame these people into doing the right things. I can dream, can’t I?

  20. Chicago News Crew Robbed While Covering Armed Robbery. (Turns out the cops saw the robbers in their stolen car but told not to pursue… and even the cops are getting robbed at gun point)

  21. off topic, sorry. Can anyone provide a link to Dyspeptic Gunsmith’s tutorial on bluing? I’ve tried the search engine and can’t find it. might be that I’m using my phone. Anyhow, thanks if you can.

  22. Vehicles before 1968 did not have locking steering, It would have easy to steal these vehicles with a 3 foot piece of wire, two alligator clips and a screwdriver. Auto theft was not a big issue, because if you got caught, it usually meant you were shot. It was called a deterrent.

  23. I must say, autobidmaster is definitely an impressive service! The process seems to be straightforward and easy to follow. The fact that there is an incredible variety of used, wholesale, and repairable cars to choose from—more than 300,000 options—is quite astounding, and the fact that there is a free registration option is a great way to begin.

Comments are closed.