Re:Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
by catalogia on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:06PM
(#22552149)
I think it is apples to apples, since as you say, the "why do you need this" question isn't relevant. Gasoline is easier to cause harm with and would be more readily accessible even if phosphorus were totally unregulated; regulating ownership of phosphorus nets a society nothing. It's as inane as banning switchblade knives when machetes, handguns, rifles, etc are all legal and available. Does anybody need a switchblade? No. But does banning them accomplish anything at all? I can't see how.
Phosphorus and gasoline even share the same potential for substance abuse. Just as you can make meth from phosphorus (apparently) you could huff gasoline. I wouldn't recommend either, but you could. Both can be used for arson, and both can be used as drugs. One you can buy anonymously in large quantities with cash in literally every neighborhood in the country.
Re:Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
by leetcrew on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:17PM
(#22552515)
the "why do you need this?" question isn't irrelevant. it's my personal opinion that it shouldn't matter, but other people aren't wrong if they disagree. I can only hope to encourage them to see things my way.
Re:Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
by nwallin on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:36PM
(#22552647)
If you want to deprive someone of their access to phosphorus, you need to deprive them of either their access to urine, or their ability to boil liquid.
I don't know what that endgame looks like, but I'm not a fan of it.
Re:Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
by chickenpotpie on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:04PM
(#22552139)
It's about the societal costs of denial vs. the risks of availability. Restricting gasoline to only certain individuals would cost millions to billions of dollars and would save us from a few fires a year. Restricting access to nuclear bombs costs almost nothing and saves huge risk.
Re:Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
by leetcrew on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:05PM
(#22552471)
some might say that restriction of X, even if X has no "real" value, is already a significant cost. depends on whether you think freedom is merely a means to an end or a value in and of itself.
Re:Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
by catalogia on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:10PM
(#22552178)
> Restricting access to nuclear bombs costs almost nothing and saves huge risk.
That makes me wonder, if nuclear bombs were deregulated, who would actually be rich and stupid enough to actually construct their own? Larry Ellison maybe? Probably not even him.
Re:Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
by chickenpotpie on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:13PM
(#22552196)
If John McAfee ever became terminally ill, I could see him building one, driving out into a desert, and going out with a literal bang.
in general, I don't think citizens should have to answer "why do you need this?" to the government, but you're not really comparing apples to apples here.