this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
74 points (95.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41734 readers
1005 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Is it because alcohol, tobacco, and firearms also have legal pathways? So they spend time tracking down cheats and checking/enforcing regulations?

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 57 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I'm still annoyed alcohol isn't administered by the Food and Drug Administration. It's both a food and a drug. I want nutrition labels (mostly for the calorie count) on my alcohol. They don't have them because the ATF does not require them as the FDA does.

Honestly, the ATF can just be split with half being folded into the FDA and the other half folded into the FBI. The ATF doesn't need to exist.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Although neither the ATF nor DEA existed before the 70s, part of the reason might have to do with ATF’s precursor existing for a really long time, before we cared about many other drugs. DEA pretty much came about under Nixon’s war on drugs.

[–] kleenbhole@lemy.lol 8 points 2 years ago

But what about prohibition era gangsters smuggling guns cigarettes and liquor? How will we fight that scourge?

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Take a look at their federal registers at the type of different actions they've been up to lately. You will see they are completely different.

https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau

https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/drug-enforcement-administration

[–] Thavron@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's both a food and a drug.

Drinks are food?

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Thavron@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 years ago

Second definition: more or less solid nourishment, as distinguished from liquids.

[–] justhach@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

ATF = cracking down on legal funtime stuffs

DEA = cracking down on illegal funtime stuffs

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Never understood the ATF hate until I became a gun enthusiast. Heysus! Even us libs hate 'em!

I bought a perfectly legal .22 rifle, pretty much this (without whatever suppressor thing is shown). It's like the baby brother version of an AR-15. Jams a lot, but it's fun!

Note the stupid looking flexible stock. That was a way to get a "short barreled rifle" because a normal, rigid stock would be illegal. "Uh, it's not a stock. It's a handicap thing for one-armed shooters." Yes, it can work that way and yes, it's a loophole.

Now I'm a felon for owning such a thing even though it was legal when I bought it. ATF: "We changed our mind. And no your gun isn't grandfathered. Because fuck you, that's why."

Shit like this is why shooters rail against any gun legislation. One dumb thing after another like this sucks political capital that could be spent on better, more effective gun laws.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm with you. We absolutely need some common sense gun legislation, but every time it comes up, it turns into a political mess. And almost all of the legislation is either like a bandaid on a leaking dam, or overbearing nanny-state bullshit.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm with ya', but gun debates taught me to avoid the "common sense" argument, in any context.

If you use those words, you imply that anyone that doesn't agree doesn't have "common sense". It's a shortcut to say, "You're an idiot if you don't accept my premise." And that's no way to reach consensus.

I'd used that term my whole life! Now I avoid it like poison.

Maybe drifting off topic a bit, but I'd like to hear your "common sense" ideas. There's got to be ideas we can all come around to.

I'll go first, and it seems an easy one; Draconian laws regarding storage. Do it please ya' gunslinger, but everything other than your primary and secondary self-defense weapons must be locked in a safe. Don't care about ammo. Don't care about guns in pieces that you're working on. Does it fire? Pick two and rotate the rest out your safe(s). That doesn't seem unreasonable. And if you're unsecured weapon is stolen or used by a minor? You. Are. Fucked.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How do you enforce storage laws? Do you regularly inspect people's homes?

Storage like that isn't unreasonable, but the methods required to enforce it are.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Same way any law is enforced. If you’re caught, you are punished.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You've glossed over how someone would get caught. Storage is done in private residences, so in order to catch someone you'd need to search their homes.

Regular searches would be unreasonable. As well as any searches just because they own a gun. The only time someone would be charged for this is when another search of the home would be conducted. The law wouldnt protect anyone nor would it increase safety or lower the rates of crimes, but add more charges to someone already being arrested. It would only inflate prison times.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No, you just make people have a requirement to carry gun insurance. See if the insurance company wants to write you a policy unless it's sure you're storing the gun properly. Maybe you need to provide a receipt for a storage locker before they will write the policy.

Maybe you do have to have someone inspect it. Plenty of states have motor vehicle inspections.

Let the free market solve this problem. Right now. Gun owners want all the toys they can dream of but want zero responsibility for when someone inevitably uses their gun to murder someone.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

You can’t keep a Tiger in your living room. In order to catch someone with it, police aren’t going door to door doing Tiger checks. That’s how literally every law works.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Who cares. People who get upset at this shit are fucking babies. Kids are getting shot left and right. Nobody gives a fuck about your short barrel.

[–] Rockyrikoko@lemm.ee 28 points 2 years ago

They could easily combine to create an organization called DAFT

[–] NemoWuMing@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Don't forget that back in 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms reached a Trade Agreement with the Food & Drug Administration

WASHINGTON, DC—The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms and the Food & Drug Administration reached a formal trade agreement Monday. Under the terms of the deal, the ATF will provide the FDA with alcohol, tobacco and firearms in exchange for equal value in food and drugs.

"My administrative assistants and I were enjoying some of our food the other day when it hit us," FDA Commissioner Michael Friedman said. "We have tons of food lying around, and tons of drugs, but nothing to drink, smoke or shoot. Then, someone—I think it was [deputy commissioner] Phil [Royce]—suggested we call up those guys at the ATF across town and see what we could get. Turns out, they were ready to deal."

...

https://www.theonion.com/bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-reaches-trade-agr-1819564792

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Ate the Onion

[–] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Governments are organized according to political processes rather than rational ones.

Even under ideal conditions, any (especially larger) organizational body is extremely difficult to keep from falling into these types of irrationality.

We have many names for variations on the phenomenon. I'll cite groupthink. You can fall down a rabbit hole on your own from there.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

literally 1984

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

It's because the main laws that regulated these things arise out of different statutes that were enacted at different times and under different circumstances.

An agency's main job is to interpret and execute its enabling statute. They may seem similar but the subject matter is all very different.

You'd have to read about the history of each of these two agencies.

I don't know much myself but I suspect they were born out of working groups from predecessor agencies.

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's about it. The ATF deals with making minor interpretations of existing law regarding its purview (which are sometimes challenged in court) as well as enforcement of regulation regarding items that are legal. The DEA is all about enforcement of the prohibition on drugs. It's the same reason that the DEA and the FDA are different, despite both dealing in drugs.

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

despite both dealing in drugs.

Heh. Don't forget the CIA!

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Oi, you're a cheeky one, ain't ya! 😆

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Most people don't consider alcohol and tobacco drugs, also alcohol, tobacco and guns have been around in the US for hundreds of years. Pretty much all the drugs that the DEA covers are relatively new compared to alcohol and tobacco, Cannabis is probably the only exception but even that wasn't nearly as common to grow and consume as the other two. The ATF was founded a year before the DEA.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Kinda how I figured it, but didn't know how closely in time they were founded. Interesting!

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Me either, I looked it up to figure it out and was surprised as well. I thought they were founded further apart. I think the ATF had a different name formerly.

[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Alcohol and pills are the good drugs because they come from corporations.

Moonshine and diacetyl morphine are the bad drugs because they come from criminals.

[–] Luke_Fartnocker@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What I want to know is; why is there an enforcement agency for alcohol, tobacco and firearms, when they are are all 3 legal?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago

All 3 can be done illegally too.

[–] Backsideslappy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Regulation requires enforcement to work.