UP Trainman shot by Robber

[csxengineer98]

all the more reason to be allowed to carry side arms!!!!!!!!!!
csx engineer

[greyhounds]

OK, this one is going to take some work. The companies don't want their employees armed because of the liability issue.

You know who you're going to shoot -- you're going to shoot the future class validictorian who would have gone on to find a cure for cancer if you hadn't shot him in the foot and just ruined his life. He had never been out at 2:00 Am before in his life. His lawyer, his own self, and his mother will see your shot as an opportunity to own the railroad.

So, you're going to have to get some kind of relief from such potentail legal actions. The state legistatures would have to do this - good damn luck, they're owned and operated by the trail lawyers.

But your unions could help here. They do have legislative contacts - try to wake up your union reps and get them interested.

Propose a plan something like this:

1) You have an inherent right to self defense
2) You will go through evaluation and training before being allowed to carry a gun on the job
3) You will undergo regular refresser evaluation and training
4) You will personally have limited liability after being approved for carrying a gun (similar to a police officer)
5) Your employer will also have limited liability

Good Luck. Letting the airline pilots arm themselves was opposed. I don't begin to understand why. If a person can handle the responsibility of being a passenger plane pilot, he/she can certainly be trusted to carry a firearm.

Some people are more emotional than rational - to the point of causing other innocent people to die.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

OK, this one is going to take some work. The companies don't want their employees armed because of the liability issue.

You know who you're going to shoot -- you're going to shoot the future class validictorian who would have gone on to find a cure for cancer if you hadn't shot him in the foot and just ruined his life. He had never been out at 2:00 Am before in his life. His lawyer, his own self, and his mother will see your shot as an opportunity to own the railroad.

So, you're going to have to get some kind of relief from such potentail legal actions. The state legistatures would have to do this - good damn luck, they're owned and operated by the trail lawyers.

But your unions could help here. They do have legislative contacts - try to wake up your union reps and get them interested.

Propose a plan something like this:

1) You have an inherent right to self defense
2) You will go through evaluation and training before being allowed to carry a gun on the job
3) You will undergo regular refresser evaluation and training
4) You will personally have limited liability after being approved for carrying a gun (similar to a police officer)
5) Your employer will also have limited liability

Good Luck. Letting the airline pilots arm themselves was opposed. I don't begin to understand why. If a person can handle the responsibility of being a passenger plane pilot, he/she can certainly be trusted to carry a firearm.

Some people are more emotional than rational - to the point of causing other innocent people to die.

what you just said is total bull..... sorry to say it..... but your thoughts that it would become the old west and shots will be fired at anything and eveything that moves are totaly wrong and unfounded.... where innocents will be shot dead for for sneaking up on someone.... i can possabley buy into some fire arm safty training for someone that has never used or owned a gun befor... but that is where i draw the line.... besides.... anyone that is out along the rails that dosnt work for the railroad at 2am is up to no good in 1 form or another...... pilots on some airlines can and do carry guns in the cockpits... and anyone that has a ride to carry permit can carry a firearm on their person to just about anywhere... so why not US!!!!!! where we work alone...in bad places...with only a radio or if you carry a cell phone to get help.... the cellphone is only so good if your still alive to be able to use it....and the radio....ahahaha....send a smoke signal..it would get the cops thier faster with all the channles you have to go through....first you have to call the engineer or yard master....the yard master will cut 1 step out of it...by being able to call the cops from a phone in the office.... but if you hvae to call the engineer...the engineer has to call the dispatcher..who then has to call the cops... lets see..... call 3 people to get the cops...talk about wasted time.... i would have bleed to death if it had to go through all them channels....when...if i could carry a side arm..be able to possable deture someone from trying to kill me for a few bucks and a debit card!!!!!!!!! anti gun people act like it will turn into the old west agin with shootouts and lead flying eveywhere...when it is proven..that when you dont know if someone is packing...or when you do know someone is packing...it dose deture crime from happing in the first place.....
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

A friend of mine was a freight conductor on the Penn Central (anybody remember PC?). On night he was in the caboose (cabin car) of a WB freight pulling out of Newark for Harrisburg. A bad guy jumped aboard and pulled a knife, requesting money from my buddy. My buddy gave him his wallet and when the BG put the knife away, my buddy pulled out a revolver. He then requested the return of his wallet. Meanwhile the train is gathering speed. So he got his wallet back and gave the BG a choice of jumping off the train, probably doing 30-40 MPH by now, or getting shot. BG jumped into the night.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

OK, this one is going to take some work. The companies don't want their employees armed because of the liability issue.

You know who you're going to shoot -- you're going to shoot the future class validictorian who would have gone on to find a cure for cancer if you hadn't shot him in the foot and just ruined his life. He had never been out at 2:00 Am before in his life. His lawyer, his own self, and his mother will see your shot as an opportunity to own the railroad.

So, you're going to have to get some kind of relief from such potentail legal actions. The state legistatures would have to do this - good damn luck, they're owned and operated by the trail lawyers.

But your unions could help here. They do have legislative contacts - try to wake up your union reps and get them interested.

Propose a plan something like this:

1) You have an inherent right to self defense
2) You will go through evaluation and training before being allowed to carry a gun on the job
3) You will undergo regular refresser evaluation and training
4) You will personally have limited liability after being approved for carrying a gun (similar to a police officer)
5) Your employer will also have limited liability

Good Luck. Letting the airline pilots arm themselves was opposed. I don't begin to understand why. If a person can handle the responsibility of being a passenger plane pilot, he/she can certainly be trusted to carry a firearm.

Some people are more emotional than rational - to the point of causing other innocent people to die.

what you just said is total bull..... sorry to say it..... but your thoughts that it would become the old west and shots will be fired at anything and eveything that moves are totaly wrong and unfounded.... where innocents will be shot dead for for sneaking up on someone....
csx engineer

Yes, this proves it. I can infuriate someone by totally agreeing with them. Just a knack that I have.

I fully support your right to carry firearms in self defense. What I was trying to point out is that the lawyers will use your life, specifically your defense of your own life, as an opportunity to enrich themselves.

They will falsely paint someone you would possibly shoot in self defense as a victim - and they will select a jury that will fork over $$$ to the victum and his/her lawyer.

I was trying to point out that you need to deal with this.

[Overmod]

The situation isn't as easy as it seems.

Cops -- who I think are much better trained and better experienced with handling sidearms -- seem to wind up shot with their own guns fairly often. One would suspect that by the time most railroaders realized they were being accosted, it would be quite difficult to produce the weapon... one presumes you're not doing switchwork with the thing cocked and locked, so you'll have to **** it unless it's double-action... aim it, etc.

Somehow, I doubt most railroaders will have the determination necessary to produce a firearm, then the judgment not to fire it in unwarranted (legally unwarranted, which requires something a bit different from common-sense judgment) situations. Engineers have enough problem with causing death to trespassers to be able to mete it out easily when surprised.

Perps who understand railroaders are armed will only be tempted to ambush railroaders more frequently, to obtain firearms easily and free. While there are ways of trying to protect against this -- requiring the little magnetic 'ring' to unlatch the trigger, for example -- I don't consider them reliable enough, and 'undefeatable' enough, to deter some baddie from trying.

Having said all that: YES, I think train crews ought to have the right to carry, if they know and accept what they're getting into. Pilots are more of a problem, because if they use the wrong type of ammunition they can depressurize or otherwise cripple the aircraft, not just injure folks. One wonders whether a shotgun with appropriate loads in the locomotive cab might be a relatively effective deterrent, more so than some little 9mil with Glasers...

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

The situation isn't as easy as it seems.

Cops -- who I think are much better trained and better experienced with handling sidearms -- seem to wind up shot with their own guns fairly often. One would suspect that by the time most railroaders realized they were being accosted, it would be quite difficult to produce the weapon... one presumes you're not doing switchwork with the thing cocked and locked, so you'll have to **** it unless it's double-action... aim it, etc.

Somehow, I doubt most railroaders will have the determination necessary to produce a firearm, then the judgment not to fire it in unwarranted (legally unwarranted, which requires something a bit different from common-sense judgment) situations. Engineers have enough problem with causing death to trespassers to be able to mete it out easily when surprised.

Perps who understand railroaders are armed will only be tempted to ambush railroaders more frequently, to obtain firearms easily and free. While there are ways of trying to protect against this -- requiring the little magnetic 'ring' to unlatch the trigger, for example -- I don't consider them reliable enough, and 'undefeatable' enough, to deter some baddie from trying.

Having said all that: YES, I think train crews ought to have the right to carry, if they know and accept what they're getting into. Pilots are more of a problem, because if they use the wrong type of ammunition they can depressurize or otherwise cripple the aircraft, not just injure folks. One wonders whether a shotgun with appropriate loads in the locomotive cab might be a relatively effective deterrent, more so than some little 9mil with Glasers...

afer reading this..you make it sound like a railroader is to stupid or untrustworty to even possess a fire arm..let alone take it to work....so your saying that becouse i go to the range and fire off a few rounds once a week makes me less trained and less able to use a firearm the the law? and how can you make the judgment that a railroader would be less likey to pull the gun....got news for you ...almost all the people i work with are hunters..and have have no problem wht firearm safty...or knowing when to pull the trigert.... the thing with carrying a consield sider arm is..you dont know if the person is armed or not!!!! so if you chose to take the chance...you might get his wallet..or you might get a belly full of 9mm rounds.... personly i wouldnt chance it....but just a thought like that would deture some people that otherwise would think that the railroader might be an easy score!!!.....
csx engineer

[Overmod]

As far as I'm concerned ANY railroader ought to have the right to carry if qualified (by reasonable standards) to do so -- and I concur that the general perception on the part of the, ahem, lowlife community would receive a healthy attitude adjustment via assured deterrence if it were commonly understood that rail crews were carrying, and authorized to use deadly force in emergencies. I continue to think, though, that fairly large weapons are better than pistols, especially concealed pistols, both for deterrence and for for proper effect when actually fired. I would also think that something like a Taser would be quite useful -- not difficult keeping the thing charged on a diesel-electric, I think! -- and this eliminates quite a few of the "popular" political difficulties concerning the arming of rail workers with 'deadly force'.

I'm only mentioning that there are many circumstances under which merely having the weapon available does not constitute either deterrence or safety... In any case, most of my comments either reference a 'perp' ambushing an employee without warning, or wrestling the gun away from him. Neither of these have anything to do with firearms handling skill, but they have a great deal to do with employee harm...

I think that police firearms training is considerably more comprehensive, and clearly better addressed toward shooting at human targets, than range shooting and particularly hunting -- when was the last time anyone seriously went after dangerous game with a handgun, .454 Casull or otherwise... That's not to denigrate railroaders, just pointing out that when firearms are a necessary part of the job description, one would expect -- and, I think, usually observe -- a higher level of both training and competence than 'otherwise'.

By comparison -- police are involved in fairly frequent high-speed automobile accidents. They receive considerable training in pursuit driving. Would you say that a few weekend drives on twisty roads makes you comparable to them in driving skill? (NOT that it doesn't, but I would prepare to bet substantial money on the outcome of 'you vs. a state trooper', for example...)

[dekemd]

Actually, most police officers are not that into guns. About 60% to 70% of officers shoot their guns only during department mandated training or qualifications. That can run anywhere from once a month to once a year depending on the department. It shows during qualifications who is proficient and who isn't. Some officers scare the crap out of you with how poor their gun handling skills are. Most qualifications courses are pretty easy though. They have to be or we'd lose that 60 to 70% of police officers. I don't agree with this but it's not my call. Some department do have higher standards. Most are bigger city departments with the money to do more training. Concealed carry qualification is even worse. The North Carolina concealed carry course has a lot of shooting at ONE YARD!?! So most police aren't really that well trained. I bet that csxengineer98 shoots more often than 50% of all the police officers in the nation.

If a traincrewman wants to carry, send him through some form of qualification test and let him carry. Once it becomes known that some railcrew are carrying, crime against rail crew will become even more rare. If they are carrying concealed (which they should be), then the bad guys won't know who's carrying and who isn't. They won't jump a crewman in hopes of taking his gun. Odds are he won't have one, so why bother. Also it really sucks to jump the brakeman looking for a gun only to find out that he isn't carrying, and then have the engineer, who is, put a bullet in your head. States that have enacted concealed carry laws have seen a reduction in street crimes. States and cities that have strict gun laws see increases in crime. It's a fact. PERIOD. England and Austrailia banned practically all guns several years ago. Their crime rates have skyrockted.

Should everyone carry a gun? No. Some people are not mature enough to handle the responsibility. However, we trust train crew to handle high tonnage equipment, often carrying hazardous chemicals, through our neighborhoods everyday. A tankcar full of LP gas or methanol is a whole lot deadlier than a pistol.

For those that don't know, I am a police officer. I deal with the criminal element everyday. We can't be everywhere. I fault no one who is trying to defend themselves.

Derrick