Gasoline in the quantities required to burn down a building with people inside it is, for the intents and purposes of an arsonist, unregulated. They might yell at you if you use an unapproved jerry can, but otherwise it may as well be unregulated as far as homicidal nut is concerned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack

Buildings are pretty flammable on their own - people die in house and building fires without any gasoline being involved whatsoever. An animation studio filled with paper, without a fire supression system, and possibly without fire escapes is no exception.

When holding out the kyoto animation studio tragedy - are you sure you're not arguing for better fire codes and gasoline regulation, rather than the deregulation of phosophorus? You're certainly not making a good argument for deregulating gasoline entirely, if that's your intention. Yes, an arsonist can get their hands on enough to do damage. Suggesting we remove all those pesky regulations so they can trivially get a gas tanker and drive that into a building - making it easy for them to cause an even larger tragedy - certainly doesn't follow as a logical conclusion, nor does giving them ready unregulated access to potentially more dangerous materials:

https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/1337 https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11498

...which would allow them to do more damage, or shrink their packages, or maybe just delay detection and reaction to their actions. Gasoline has a distinctive smell that would make me curious/cautious. What does phosophorus smell like? I could see myself mistaking someone spreading it out for someone spreading fertilizer or something, at least until the point it starts spontaniously combusting.

By all means write better fire codes, but unless you wrap yourself in a mile of asbestos blankets I don't think anything you do will render you immune to burning gasoline. There is nothing you or any government can do to stop a nutjob from killing you with gasoline.

Yet here you are, unscathed. Nobody has thrown gasoline at you yet, and probably nobody ever will. Why? It's not because of any gasoline regulations, nor because of your reaction time to smells, nor because of tanker truck regulations, or anything like that. The true reason nobody has lit you on fire yet is because there aren't really that many arsonists who want to light you on fire. That's it; it rarely happens because it's rare that anybody has the inclination to do it.

So how about phosphorus crime? Is that common? No, and I see no rational reason to believe it would be more common than gasoline attacks if phosphorous were as unregulated as gasoline. Even if phosphorus were unregulated, the market demand for it would be low and therefore few stores would sell it. Gasoline would remain the obvious accelerant for any would-be-arsonist.

The phosphorous crime in question is using it as a reagent in a few illicit drug synthesis paths (and poor ones too), specifically methamphetamine.

So yes, there have been a plenty of phosphorous related crime.

Now, whether we should allow just about anyone to synthesize meth is a different and more pertinent question. Synthesis alone is not especially dangerous, illegal distribution is... and this ban was taken to curb it. It is not especially successful. (Also limits on saffrol and sulfuric acid for other drugs.)

In comparison, production of explosives is dangerous. Risks fire and explosions, therefore should not be done on a bench top by just about anyone. (And reason for limits on nitric acid.)

Chemical disposal is also a quite minor problem.

I've actually lived in a neighborhood that was being randomly targeted by a nutjob arsonist, with multiple fires, and some burned down buildings. Fortunately, IIRC, no deaths, but perhaps one injured firefighter. In attempting to find an article about the bloke to refresh my memory as to if the arsonist used accelerants like gasoline - I believe he did at least once, but perhaps inconsistently - I didn't find google particularly helpful, as there have been apparently more recent arsonists in that same neighborhood cluttering up my search results. Arson is perhaps not quite as rare as you think, although I'm still pretty relaxed about it. Turns out most arsonists don't think to get an entire trolley or cart full of gasoline, and in smaller quantities it isn't quite as dangerous.

I'm more worried - although still rather relaxed - about accidents. I've caught a gas leak. I've walked up to a restraunt I frequent only to find the building condemed due to a nearby gas leak resulting in an explosion overnight, rendering the structure unsound. I've had insulation in heating ducts catch fire. I've had drunk neighbors in a shared apartment complex set their kitchens on fire as they've gone to sleep. I've helped stomp out grass fires caused by someone's discarded cigarette butts. I'm sure there's more I've simply forgotten. Again, no deaths, despite plenty of property damage and destruction.

> So how about phosphorus crime? Is that common? No, and I see no rational reason to believe it would be more common than gasoline attacks if phosphorous were as unregulated as gasoline.

I hear a lot more about war crimes involving white phosphorus than I do about war crimes involving gasoline, despite current regulations. Even if you're correct that civilian crime involving phosphorus wouldn't become as common as civilian crime involving gasoline, that wouldn't make any uptick a good thing, or even neutral.