Well it sounded like a good idea.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bushpilot said:
There are surplus FN FAL's with selector switches that rotate to all three positions that don't function as a full auto.....
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are also many HK-type rifles with 3-position ("SEF") selectors. What's marked on the outside of the trigger housing makes no difference. Unless there's a full-auto internal trigger mechanism, putting the selector lever in the full auto position just results in semi fire.

There was a recent thread here about AR-15 rifles with safe-semi-full lower receiver markings. Again, those are OK unless the "third hole" is drilled for the auto sear.
 
LEO's are bureaucrats, and here is what most bureaucrats really want: rest, job security, bigger pensions, and more power. Doing the things they were hired to do is often pretty far down on the list. They like turning people away. It saves them work. Anyone who has ever tried to get help from the government knows this. You get a phone tree. Then eventually you get a person. That person refers you to another organization. That organization has a phone tree. The person you finally talk to refers you back to the first organization. Eventually, you go away, which is what they wanted in the first place.

Anyone who is surprised at the difficulty of getting guns away from dangerous people is not taking human nature into account.
 
Assuming that you have some sort of proof on his threatening anyone, much less an elderly and handicapped man, is reason enough to contact both the County Sheriff and the state police. If it was just a rumor, you might want to go to a town council meeting and voice your concerns there.

Long ago and far away the advice to mind your own would have been the norm and prudent. In modern times with modern mores, it is best to have those with violent tendencies to be at the least put under the microscope. If for no other reason, should this person later on commit an act of violence that creates a media storm you will at least have a paper trail showing that had the authorities followed existing law the act could have been avoided with simple enforcement. It falls under the heading of one of my late uncle's little doggerels – while it may not save the day, it never hurts to CYA.
 
Last edited:
Long ago and far away the advice to mind your own would have been the norm and prudent. In modern times with modern mores, it is best to have those with violent tendencies to be at the least put under the microscope. If for no other reason, should this person later on commit an act of violence that creates a media storm you will at least have a paper trail showing that had the authorities followed existing law the act could have been avoided with simple enforcement. It falls under the heading of one of my late uncle's little doggerels – while it may not save the day, it's always wise to CYA.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious that the OP didn't provide us with enough information to arrive at any sort of definitive answer. We don't even know whether the OP witnessed anything first hand, whether the police have already been involved or whether this is just a bunch of neighborhood gossip... I think that is why many of us are erring on the side of discretion.... If the guys neighbor committed a crime, especially with a firearm, I don't think any of us are trying to recommend the OP disregard the crime or shield the guy in any way from the authorities. In the meanwhile, until we actually have some facts, I don't see much point in all of us continuing to speculate.....
 
Last edited:
Reporting him to the local authorities is the best approach, if you truly feel there is a potential danger and not a mere nuisance.

And keep in mind, merely reporting the activities is not the same as swearing out a complaint.

I would also suggest not relaying the information through the dispatcher or whoever merely answers the phone, but try to speak to someone a little higher in the chain, this way all of your concerns can be fully discussed.

Providing that your local LE is competent, and well versed in your local ordinances and state gun laws, reporting should lead to an actual investigation, the results of which would determine what actions LE would take next.
 
Bushpilot said:
I think it's pretty obvious that the OP didn't provide us with enough information to arrive at any sort of definitive answer. In the meanwhile, until we actually have some facts, I don't see much point in all of us continuing to speculate.....
Click to expand...

While I totally agree that we have not been given enough facts, or even evidence that the few facts we have been presented with, are true or legitimate, when it comes to speculation and giving some sort of advice, isn't that what the OP came here for?

As I said before, if the OP was there as a witness to the gun being pulled on someone, then he has already failed by not reporting the crime to the local authorities. If the OP is being hesitant because he is relying on second and third hand accounts, than when he needs, is to be vigilant. He also is wise to wait until he knows the facts first hand. Lots of ornery old farts out there.....many don't want anyone else to know what they have for firearms. It is not a crime, nor is it any thing to get one's panties in a wad over. Every neighborhood has the one "weirdo" than everyone talks about and blames every missing piece of mail or cat on. Most of the time, it's just rumors and gossip. But, if that weirdo pulls a gun on someone not in self defense, or in fear for their safety, they need to be reported. Period. Letting that kind of crap go is just enabling and asking for it to escalate.
 
stevehgraham said:
LEO's are bureaucrats, and here is what most bureaucrats really want: rest, job security, bigger pensions, and more power. Doing the things they were hired to do is often pretty far down on the list. They like turning people away. It saves them work. Anyone who has ever tried to get help from the government knows this. You get a phone tree. Then eventually you get a person. That person refers you to another organization. That organization has a phone tree. The person you finally talk to refers you back to the first organization. Eventually, you go away, which is what they wanted in the first place.

Anyone who is surprised at the difficulty of getting guns away from dangerous people is not taking human nature into account.
Click to expand...

An amazing if very inaccurate comment. You have no idea what we do or what we think. Quit watching Cops because it doesn't make you an expert.
 
First off --- In all of my experience with local law enforcement (bureaucrats) , officers have been responsive and professional , as have the dispatchers who sent them.

I re-read the OP's op ; nothing said about contacting local LE. Going to the ATF without going to the local authorities makes no sense. Alerting the media would be absurd. If the neighbor is indeed on disability for mental instability he is in the system. Use the system.

OP poked a hornet's nest to see what would happen --- too little information leads to wild speculation. Hornets are buzzing about.

Either the OP should substantiate his story , or this whole thing should be dropped for lack of substance.
 
With age and bitter experience come knowledge and wisdom. Having dealt with government employees all my life, I know exactly what to expect. Some want to get things done. Most are only in it for the check, especially after a few disillusioning years on the job.

Why do you think so many mass shooters turned out to be people law enforcement already knew about? Answer: because law enforcement is not highly motivated to take preventive measures. Not when there is significant work involved. They're okay at responding to crimes in progress, but they underperform in other areas. If you tell the cops your neighbor is in your house with a samurai sword, they will come right over. If you tell them he waves a gun at you and threatens to kill your family once a week, and you have no witnesses and no video, you are on your own.

Look at it this way:

Scenario A: FBI (or local cops) respond to OP's warning. They investigate. They write reports. They consult prosecutors to see what the best course of action is. They decide on a way to approach the nut and get his firearms. Then there is a shootout, or the nut complies and then sues them. Either way, their quiet lives have been disrupted, and they have been put to a great deal of grief. Their reputations and pensions, and the careers of the attorneys (very ambitious people who don't want to be underpaid prosecutors all their lives) have been put at risk. They might have to get real, private sector jobs where it's much easier to get fired and there are no pensions.

Scenario B: FBI brushes OP off. They do nothing whatsoever. Then one of two things happens:

1) the nut never harms anyone, and the government employees are in the clear. They took no risks and did no work. Their reputation is safe, and so are their pensions; or

2) the nut shoots up a school or mall. About 1% of the populace criticizes the government for a while. A week later, they've stopped complaining. The government employees are in the clear. They took no risks and did no work. Their reputation is safe, and so are their pensions.

Alternative 2 happened with Nikolas Cruz. Except for one LEO who hid while the kids were shot (and got caught on camera), none of the many cops who dealt with Cruz in were held accountable. And Cruz was one of their best customers. He was notorious.

People who know how the world works know which course law enforcement or any other government entity will usually take, and they know they will get pushback for talking about it.
 
Bbear said:
There is also the local PD and/or Sheriff's Department. Just let them know of your experiences with him as well as the reasoning.
Click to expand...


I called the local PD. The Detective just left. I gave him all the info and he said he will take it from there. I told him I don't THINK he would shoot up a school but am 100% positive he will 'go off' sooner than later.

He has had issues with 90% of the neighbors and after 50+ years of shooting I have never reported anyone for something like this.
 
Shimitup said:
Keep in mind like the rest of us we can only use one at time, I don't mind at all how many he owns. Too bad the 85 year old disabled guy didn't file charges with local PD, the issue may have been resolved. ^^^^ What Frank said.
Click to expand...


Actually did. The Police came out but the guy wouldn't answer the door. I told the Detective where his truck was and he was going to use that info from there.
 
Bushpilot said:
There are surplus FN FAL's with selector switches that rotate to all three positions that don't function as a full auto..... As far as the number of guns he has, like Shimitup said, it really is irrelevant, it's not against the law to have a lot of guns......
Click to expand...
I used to have one
 
Good, you did what you thought you needed to to clear your conscience. I probably would have done the same thing if I was that wary of one of my neighbors. Just don't be overly optimistic that something will happen. Like it was pointed out earlier, if he hasn't actually done anything yet, there isn't much the police can do. That threatening charge is all they have right now.
 
stevehgraham said:
With age and bitter experience come knowledge and wisdom. Having dealt with government employees all my life, I know exactly what to expect. Some want to get things done. Most are only in it for the check, especially after a few disillusioning years on the job.

Why do you think so many mass shooters turned out to be people law enforcement already knew about? Answer: because law enforcement is not highly motivated to take preventive measures. Not when there is significant work involved. They're okay at responding to crimes in progress, but they underperform in other areas. If you tell the cops your neighbor is in your house with a samurai sword, they will come right over. If you tell them he waves a gun at you and threatens to kill your family once a week, and you have no witnesses and no video, you are on your own.

Look at it this way:

Scenario A: FBI (or local cops) respond to OP's warning. They investigate. They write reports. They consult prosecutors to see what the best course of action is. They decide on a way to approach the nut and get his firearms. Then there is a shootout, or the nut complies and then sues them. Either way, their quiet lives have been disrupted, and they have been put to a great deal of grief. Their reputations and pensions, and the careers of the attorneys (very ambitious people who don't want to be underpaid prosecutors all their lives) have been put at risk. They might have to get real, private sector jobs where it's much easier to get fired and there are no pensions.

Scenario B: FBI brushes OP off. They do nothing whatsoever. Then one of two things happens:

1) the nut never harms anyone, and the government employees are in the clear. They took no risks and did no work. Their reputation is safe, and so are their pensions; or

2) the nut shoots up a school or mall. About 1% of the populace criticizes the government for a while. A week later, they've stopped complaining. The government employees are in the clear. They took no risks and did no work. Their reputation is safe, and so are their pensions.

Alternative 2 happened with Nikolas Cruz. Except for one LEO who hid while the kids were shot (and got caught on camera), none of the many cops who dealt with Cruz in were held accountable. And Cruz was one of their best customers. He was notorious.

People who know how the world works know which course law enforcement or any other government entity will usually take, and they know they will get pushback for talking about it.
Click to expand...

When you generalize about a group of people you're likely to be wrong. I was a LEO in the Chicago area. I knew LEO's that fit your description, but most didn't. I'm sorry about whatever happened to sour your view of LEO's, but most do care about the people they serve. Telling the OP to not bother bringing this to their attention if doing so is warranted because they won't do anything is really bad advice.
 
Last edited:
Off thread but


LEO's are bureaucrats, and here is what most bureaucrats really want: rest, job security, bigger pensions, and more power.
Click to expand...

I think that is unfair to say the least.

I would imagine most Law enforcement Officers the want the same thing most other working people do,
to try to do their job to the best of their ability, (at least most of us still do)
to collect a paycheck to pay the bills,
to make it home after work to see wife/husband/kids dog etc,
and to be able to retire sometime and not have to worry about work.

I am not an LEO and I don't have friends who are LEOs so I don't consider myself biased about this in in any way.

I worked for County Government for 11 years and yes there were the people who just did enough to get by and keep their job but they were the exception not the norm, I see the same thing in private industry.


OP should give the Local Law Enforcement a chance to deal with the problem.
 
Last edited:
For What It’s Worth; paranoia strikes deep.

Growing up, I had neighbors that owned guns, some I liked and some I didn’t. However, I never thought that they would go on a killing rampage. Although a few were argumentative, I never questioned their mental stability.

What’s changed? We are losing our freedom. We have entered a world where innuendo and speculation alone becomes the basis of a police visit The MSM has brainwashed our citizens to the point that anyone with a gun is a potential danger to society.
 
If you neighbor is truly unstable and thinks you are the one causing him trouble he may want to cause trouble back.
You could be in real danger. Watch you back.
 
2ifbyC said:
For What It’s Worth; paranoia strikes deep.

Growing up, I had neighbors that owned guns, some I liked and some I didn’t.
Click to expand...
+1
For what it's worth, growing up I don't believe we had any neighbors that didn't own guns. But where I grew up, it would have been a real oddity if there was a household without a gun or three. Where we live now, I believe it's still that way. But we're in SE Idaho, 30 miles from a town of any size.
Nevertheless, I think you are right 2ifbyC; the MSM has brainwashed a good many people into thinking "anyone with a gun is a potential danger to society." They want everyone to think that "gunmen" (as the MSM calls us) are just waiting for a chance to shoot some people we don't like.
 
2ifbyC said:
For What It’s Worth; paranoia strikes deep.

Growing up, I had neighbors that owned guns, some I liked and some I didn’t. However, I never thought that they would go on a killing rampage. Although a few were argumentative, I never questioned their mental stability.

What’s changed? We are losing our freedom. We have entered a world where innuendo and speculation alone becomes the basis of a police visit The MSM has brainwashed our citizens to the point that anyone with a gun is a potential danger to society.
Click to expand...


I didn't question his mental stability. The Social Security Administration are the ones who said he is "MENTALLY UNSTABLE" and put him on 100% disability.

I did however start to wonder about his sanity when he pulled a .45 on my elderly disabled neighbor.
 
luger fan said:
I did however start to wonder about his sanity when he pulled a .45 on my elderly disabled neighbor.
Click to expand...

If you were a witness to the above, it has nutttin' to do with sanity, and is all about what is criminal. In that case, you need to report it to the local authorities.......period.
 
I believe the OP did give us enough details. It's contained in every colorful adjective attached to a noun.

What some are politely suggesting is that beyond the description there could be a typical gun owner who isn't being viewed thru an objective lens. Said individual may be already well known to local Federal Agents - they shoot with him at the range, or he even served with them in other capacities.

I'm aware of one fellow with a college degree in his profession, and military experience, who just tells it straight out and then deals with others inability to handle the truth. He's commonly disparaged by them. Yet, in a lot of cases, he's right and loses no sleep over it. He doesn't let an emotional assessment or his feelings interfere with finding of fact. Fortunately he's never been compelled to point a gun in self defense.

Which, in the case of the conflict with an 85 year old man, is entirely up in the air. There is no guarantee who was in the wrong there absent an actual record of the entire event. I suspect the OP was not a witness, either, which adds to the second hand quality of the story and it's credibility.

We certainly DO want to have some oversight of what people do which might become injurious to the public at large - goes to what is the 85 year old man doing to aggravate others and then have them respond to his presence with lethal force? What's HE up to? Does he need intervention? Was it a simple stunt to commit suicide by Armed Neighbor?

Ad infinitum, we certainly don't have the answers here. We need to very carefully examine and define exactly what is unstable behavior and be well educated in exactly what it is. Then leave it to the responsible authorities - local police and medically trained responders. Attempting to elevate it to national level actors is too much too soon. If they are needed then others who were involved at the local level will get in touch.
 
If he is on SSDI for mental instability he has been deemed by Dr's as being mentally unfit. THAT ALONE will disqualify him from owning and/or possession of firearms. Now the $99 question is getting ANY law enforcement to step in and investigate until he wounds or kills somebody. Even assault is often not investigated like it should be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Ohio Gunman Kills Worker, Self, Cops Say
Replies
6
Views
625
Poodleshooter
P
S
  • Locked
(AK) three brothers murdered by their own mother
Replies
9
Views
4K
Kodiak AK
K
T
  • Locked
Man fired after saving life
Replies
4
Views
373
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
F
  • Locked
Boy defends mom with BB gun
Replies
6
Views
599
SharpsDressedMan
S
W
  • Locked
The First Mass Gun Spree Killer:Howard Unruh,Camden NJ 1949.60 Years of Copycats
Replies
3
Views
408
Winchester 73
W
Back
Top