Self defense and the RR

http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news ... leID=52241

Just when you think a thread is dead...

I still don't understand the thinking of some folks' complete aversion to a legal concealed carry permit holder having his weapon with him on duty to protect himself. Remember, the RR doesn't usually operate in nice, clean, low-crime areas.

Concealed Carry doesn't make people heros, or invulnerable. It may not have helped this guy at all. However, I think that in most situations, it gives you options and it gives you a chance. Without it you are just a target with no options.

I think someone suggested carrying a air hose for protection. Bringing a air hose to a gun fight, huh?

The lawyers at CSX must be comfortable knowing their employees were unarmed during the attack. 1 dead 1 wounded, a criminal still at large to do this again, at any time.

The lawyers at CSX must be comfortable knowing their employees were unarmed during the attack.

It's a pretty safe bet that if T&E employees were armed, OTJ shootings would skyrocket. And prohibiting crew members from "packing" ain't exactly a new rule born in this litigious age.

From the UTU article: "Gibbs is the fifth UTU member killed on duty in 2010. Eight UTU members were killed while on duty in 2009."

Are they referring to members killed in the commission of crimes or would this include accidents?

Cowford wrote:

The lawyers at CSX must be comfortable knowing their employees were unarmed during the attack.

It's a pretty safe bet that if T&E employees were armed, OTJ shootings would skyrocket. And prohibiting crew members from "packing" ain't exactly a new rule born in this litigious age.

From the UTU article: "Gibbs is the fifth UTU member killed on duty in 2010. Eight UTU members were killed while on duty in 2009."

Are they referring to members killed in the commission of crimes or would this include accidents?

"It's a pretty safe bet that if T&E employees were armed, OTJ shootings would skyrocket." Why? How do you figure? That's the exact same thing those who were against the big conceal carry movement in the 80's and 90's said, and here 15-20 years later, it has not come to pass.

I would like to know the answer to that question about the numbers of employees killed myself.

Kick'em wrote:

Cowford wrote:

The lawyers at CSX must be comfortable knowing their employees were unarmed during the attack.

It's a pretty safe bet that if T&E employees were armed, OTJ shootings would skyrocket. And prohibiting crew members from "packing" ain't exactly a new rule born in this litigious age.

From the UTU article: "Gibbs is the fifth UTU member killed on duty in 2010. Eight UTU members were killed while on duty in 2009."

Are they referring to members killed in the commission of crimes or would this include accidents?

"It's a pretty safe bet that if T&E employees were armed, OTJ shootings would skyrocket." Why? How do you figure? That's the exact same thing those who were against the big conceal carry movement in the 80's and 90's said, and here 15-20 years later, it has not come to pass.

I would like to know the answer to that question about the numbers of employees killed myself.

Well, yeah. Folks with concealed carry permits very rarely get jammed up over anything, let alone the gun. For one thing, any kind of legal trouble will likely cost you your permit.

I'm sure the RR isn't too keen on the idea, regardless. Thanks, kick'em for making a positive point.
Best,
Malley

The effects of concealed carry on crime are difficult to discern. One thing that's for sure is that allowing permit holders to carry concealed doesn't increase shootings.

The theory behind concealed carry is that there are positive spillover effects to the general community. If a criminal can't tell who is armed and who isn't, that increases the cost of every interaction with an intended victim. It's more expensive for a predator to be hurt than for the prey. A predator doesn't have the pack to rely on to nurse them through their healing.

Well said, Russ.

Folks opposed to concealed carry fall in two categories, IMHO. Some feel that, by banning legal concealed carry, they are also banning any carry, a theory illogical on its face. It makes about as much sense as making 'felon' a class of government job, so that they would be concerned and bound by rules and regulations...
Others have moral or ethical reservations about ordinary citizens having the power of life or death, or are simply made uneasy by the presence of guns. Gary Trudeau, of Doonesbury fame, seems to fall in the latter category. He habitually exaggerates 2nd Ammendment positions to a ludicrous degree.
Now getting RR leadership to buy into the program is another matter altogether.
Malley

Malley wrote:Well said, Russ.

Folks opposed to concealed carry fall in two categories, IMHO. Some feel that, by banning legal concealed carry, they are also banning any carry, a theory illogical on its face. It makes about as much sense as making 'felon' a class of government job, so that they would be concerned and bound by rules and regulations...
Others have moral or ethical reservations about ordinary citizens having the power of life or death, or are simply made uneasy by the presence of guns. Gary Trudeau, of Doonesbury fame, seems to fall in the latter category. He habitually exaggerates 2nd Ammendment positions to a ludicrous degree.
Now getting RR leadership to buy into the program is another matter altogether.
Malley

I bet them the same morons in Government who want to make it illegal to have a Concealed wepon have one on them for self defence. They just want to make the streets safer knowing that nobody will harm them becouse they live in fear of the public at large who more than likley are pissed off at them and tired of all the B.S!

scharnhorst wrote:
]


I bet them the same morons in Government who want to make it illegal to have a Concealed wepon have one on them for self defence. They just want to make the streets safer knowing that nobody will harm them becouse they live in fear of the public at large who more than likley are pissed off at them and tired of all the B.S!

Scharnhorst, said 'morons' would be offended to even touch a gun, let alone carry or use one. Instead, they rely on the 'rough men' of the famous Orwell quote to do any needed violence on their behalf. I'm betting most of them don't hold those rough men in very high regard, just a necessary evil to do the dirty work, same as hauling away the trash.
Just how it is.
Malley

"Gibbs is the fifth UTU member killed on duty in 2010. Eight UTU members were killed while on duty in 2009."

Are they referring to members killed in the commission of crimes or would this include accidents?"

I emailed UTU news and was referred to a page memorializing all of the on-duty fallen members for the year. It would appear that Conductor Gibbs' death was the only one due to a crime by a non-RR employee. Perhaps it is not as much a problem as I think, or perhaps we don't hear about it until someone dies or is severely wounded. I know 3 people in Rocky Mount who were assaulted, robbed or about to be assaulted (the other member of the crew showed up at the right moment).

http://www.utu.org/worksite/rail_safety ... s_2010.htm

I've been reflecting on what railroaders are apt to encounter; it seems to me that there are two totally different problems. The first is in lonely, rural places (CSX guys were to pick up a bad order oilcan down by our camp; a westbound move stopped in the middle of the night to tend to it and was thwarted by a misbehaving derail). What might they encounter? Personally, I've shot two creatures that almost certainly were rabid (red fox and a raccoon), and we have all manner of fauna, including bobcats, 'coons, coyotes, bears and snakes...most are harmless, but can be problematic under the wrong circumstances.
Then there are big, lonely, dark railyards in major urban centers (it ain't country boys spraying a bazillion gallons of paint on all those freight cars), with the potential for muggings or armed robbery. Of course, the problems can spill over; always possible to have a troublesome critter in the city, or a redneck mugger looking for the price of a case of beer.
Adding to the problem are the smaller crews and the need of crew to be off their units tending to what they must do.
Glad it ain't me.
Malley

rattle snakes were aways my big fear when I had worked on the RR on and off with varyed rail contractors. When in Big citys I often had a knife tucked away in my boot.

how about fear of heights and shark? we can overcome it if we join in RR.

I think a lot of posters here are missing the point. The purpose for carrying a concealed weapon is the preservation of one's life, or the protection of other innocent lives. It is not to have a gun to brandish at outlaws, or settle disputes with. Life or death: that is the sole purpose.

If one is working on a railroad, and a criminal threatens one's life, what difference does it make if carrying a gun is against the company rules? If you lose your life, you are not going to have a job anyway. Has anyone willingly allowed themselves to be murdered rather than break a company rule?

I have worked for railroads that involved night work in high-crime areas. I have worked in places where full automatic weapons fire can be heard anytime day or night. I have worked on train crews where at least one out of three employees were carrying concealed guns.

For my own part, I have always felt safer working on a crew when someone was armed. If I was running a locomotive, and the conductor mentioned he had a gun on him, I would ask him if he would use it to defend me if necessary. Every person I asked this question of answered "yes".

It has also been my experience that lower-level railroad managers acknowledge the need for crews to be armed in certain areas, and generally are willing to overlook the rules infraction if not done blatantly. I have worked for twelve railroads, and have never known an armed employee to get into serious trouble for bringing a gun to work.

I worked for a railroad once that had two train crews robbed at gunpoint. The place was so dangerous, they had to hire an armed security guard just to protect the employees' parked cars. And yes, he had to pull his gun on occasion.

This should not be reduced to a political discussion. It is a matter of life and death. Getting fired is a lot better than getting shot. Trust me on that one.

Les

The problem with your position on this matter and your reply is that both sound like positions of common sense and we all know that common sense is not really very commonly encountered, especially by those in positions of safety and security.