Self defense and the RR

GCOR:
1.12 Weapons
While on duty or on railroad property, employees must not have firearms or other deadly weapons, including
knives with a blade longer than 3 inches. However, railroad police are authorized to possess firearms in the
course of their work.

RussNelson wrote:Ja, well, disarming railroad employees because the railroad might get sued is bad public policy. I understand why the railroad has these rules, but it doesn't make railroad employees safer.

Ok, so how about also arming the bus drivers, trolley and rapid transit operators, security guards, night bank cleaning personnel, McDonalds staff, taxi drivers ? Most of these jobs are probably more dangerous criminally than being a railroad employee.

3rdrail wrote:Ok, so how about also arming the bus drivers, trolley and rapid transit operators, security guards, night bank cleaning personnel, McDonalds staff, taxi drivers ? Most of these jobs are probably more dangerous criminally than being a railroad employee.

Railroad employees should be neither encouraged to arm, nor discouraged from arming themselves. The whole point behind concealed carry is to create a safety commons, where criminals don't know who's armed, and who isn't. If nobody was armed (except police), then criminals would feel safe against attack by their victims. If everybody was armed, then people of ill temper, or careless, or merely unlucky people would have gun accidents. If you have a happy medium, then the people who choose to train themselves on the operation of weapons can carry them, and those who choose not to will also be safer.

A railroad can, on its property, set rules that employees are to adhere too.
If you don't like it quit.

DutchRailnut wrote:A railroad can, on its property, set rules that employees are to adhere to.

Of course. What they can't do is change the nature of the predator / prey relationship. Wishes aren't fishes.

RussNelson wrote:

Malley wrote:Now, all that said, the biggest advantage to a concealed gun is the ability of its user to make a threat go away without firing a shot;

No, the biggest advantage is the uncertainty it introduces into the predator's life. They don't know who can fight back, and who can't. Predators can't take risks. If they suffer injury, they have no support system to take care of them while they mend. If even a small part of their potential victims have the ability to fight back, the predator will move on to a different pool of victims.

The public policy advantage of mixing sheepdogs in with the sheep (allowing concealed weapons) is that the sheep are protected. Even those who are unwilling or unable to use violence are protected. THAT is why systemically disarming railroad employees is bad policy.

I agree, which is why CONCEALED carry is the plan; now, push come to shove, it may be necessary to draw a firearm. If you chose to do this, there are some things that had better be true; you are in danger of death or grave bodily injury, you are aware you are escalating the level of force, and you better be prepared to USE the gun; otherwise it may be taken from you/used against you. It's a scary situation, and not one to be taken lightly. Fortunately, most times the mere presence sends the goblin on his way, seeking a softer target. But it doesn't always go that way, and you must be aware of that.
There is a reason that killers shoot up schools and not FOP meetings....and if successful cases of lawabiding gun owners USING their arms legally recieved as much attention as criminal misuse, there would never be another gun control law proposed. Ever.
Malley

Malley wrote:...and if successful cases of lawabiding gun owners USING their arms legally recieved as much attention as criminal misuse, there would never be another gun control law proposed. Ever.
Malley

And where do you suppose these guns come from that kill store merchants and five year old kids who happen to be sitting on a mailbox at the wrong place and wrong time ? (They don't buy them at Cabelas). Often times, they get them from these "law abiding gun owners", often who carelessly safeguard their weapons, in house breaks. Less handguns in the hands of the civilian public = less handguns in the hands of criminals.

3rdrail wrote:Less handguns in the hands of the civilian public = less handguns in the hands of criminals.

That's the route that England, Australia, and Canada are following. Is it working for them? Has violent crime increased or decreased?

RussNelson wrote:

3rdrail wrote:Less handguns in the hands of the civilian public = less handguns in the hands of criminals.

That's the route that England, Australia, and Canada are following. Is it working for them? Has violent crime increased or decreased?

afaik , guns have always been restricted in England , Australia and here . Our police are not armed either , though they now carry pepper spray , and are debating the use of tasers . violent crime and armed robberies still happen , but i beleive at a fraction of the rate in the USA .

David Benton wrote:

RussNelson wrote:

3rdrail wrote:Less handguns in the hands of the civilian public = less handguns in the hands of criminals.

That's the route that England, Australia, and Canada are following. Is it working for them? Has violent crime increased or decreased?

AFAIK, guns have always been restricted in England, Australia, and here. Our police are not armed either, though they now carry pepper spray, and are debating the use of tasers. Violent crime and armed robberies still happen, but I believe at a fraction of the rate in the USA .

I wouldn't presume to educate you about gun politics in England, Australia, and Canada, but you're not answering my question. My question has nothing to do with the US: I'm asking whether, in those countries, gun crime, violent crime, and total crime, has gone up or down in the passage of more restrictions on gun ownership? If these new restrictions (all about ten years old now) haven't reduced gun crime, violent crime, AND total crime, then why should we emulate them? (I know why railroads disarm their employees -- because they don't want to get sued by would-be perpetrators -- but that's caused by gun control public policy. If people understood that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens decreased crime, then they would pass laws that made it possible for railroads to allow gun-owning workers to carry them.)

Mr. Nelson - There are few developed countries in the world (if any) where violent crime has not gone up in the last ten years, irregardless of whether gun control measures have taken place or otherwise.

Firearms have always been restricted in England , australia and new zealand . The "tightening " is more a political reaction to high publicity massacres , i doubt they made it significantly tougher to own a firearm .
Anyone caught carrying a firearm in public would be arrested , and would have alot of explaining to do . Hunters must have guns securely locked in the trunk in transit from whereever theyre hunting and home . even martial arts weapons must be in the trunk , and you need to explain what theyre doing there , on your way to and from meetings etc .
So i think my point is valid , firearms have always been alot more restricted in these countries compared to the USA . Canada im not so sure of .

I'll rest my case.

3rdrail wrote:

Malley wrote:...and if successful cases of lawabiding gun owners USING their arms legally recieved as much attention as criminal misuse, there would never be another gun control law proposed. Ever.
Malley

And where do you suppose these guns come from that kill store merchants and five year old kids who happen to be sitting on a mailbox at the wrong place and wrong time ? (They don't buy them at Cabelas). Often times, they get them from these "law abiding gun owners", often who carelessly safeguard their weapons, in house breaks. Less handguns in the hands of the civilian public = less handguns in the hands of criminals.

If we're going to make likelyhood of theft dictate how we determine if people are allowed to have something, we'd better be prepared to insist everything from jewelry to VCRs be 'locked up', as housebreakers turn these items into drugs and/or guns as well. Places with really restrictive gun laws still have the highest crime/murder rate, and while I won't dispute that there are other demographic issues at work, it remains true that lots of guns does not equal high crime/murder. It is also true that the gunnies I know lock up their arms in dark, ugly safes rather than displaying them proudly, as was once the norm. I suppose we could make using a safe mandatory, but how we would enforce it I cannot imagine. That's what's wrong with almost any gun ban/control proposal; to make it even marginally effective, most of the Constitution would have to be ignored.

As regards the effect of gun laws in Europe, there are several ways to look at it. By every standard, save murder, crime in England is much worse than it is here, particularly things like muggings and home invasions (that is, burglary of occupied homes). Handguns are now banned entirely in Great Britain, but the gun crime/murder rate has increased since the ban. Even the overall murder rate may be approaching that of the US, as the 'civil servants' have been torturing the numbers. GB's crime problem is compounded by a not particularly effective poice force, an unwillingness to punish perpetrators, a willingness to prosecute anyone who fights back against the criminals, and an absence of any reasonable way to fight back.

As regards overall number of murders/rate, allowing for some overall peaks and valleys, the trend has been going down, not up, in the US.

What it all boils down to is comfort level, not disarming criminals. Some of us are more comfortable with guns, while others would be more comfortable if at least some of the populace was disarmed, regardless of any negligible impact on criminals or crime.

Malley

Mr Malley with your proposal of railroaders breaking rules , you are no better than the criminals you portrait to hate.
Lets take this discussion back to railroading, as it stands now it is nothing more that a right wing nut gun rally.