I am gonna go ahead and assume theres no freedom you wouldn't give away for safety if the government justified it in the right way.
Rules do not necessarily reduce freedom, they can in fact even provide more freedom on the longer term, when the system finds a new balance.
The difficulty of course is to find the proper rules and evaluate these effects from current system state.
The kind of rules being peddled by the kind of people who peddle rules in a fireworks thread are almost certainly the exact opposite of the kind that direct things at a freer equilibrium.
It's not that we can't have rules. It's that we can't have shortsighted people with bad morals writing tules.
Back to my point above that there are laws and regulations that are fine, and then theres the pre-crime nonsense trying to reduce risk to zero that are being peddled today.
Burning your neighbors house down is already illegal. You and they should already have insurance. House fires in human dwellings have been a risk since we started building houses next to other houses.
The issue is that we (and I mean worldwide) have gone from legalism as a method of settling disputes and advertising penalties for destructive behavior, to outlawing risk entirely.
The crux of the matter is that no one stops to point out where the line is. Laws will come in to penalise low probability risks, people make these arguments "wont someone think of the children" and then lawmakers turn on to even lower probability risks.
If you had even a benchmark, "more probable than x is outlawed" people would be more understanding. And its not a slippery slope argument, because the slope seems to be the point and without a line the destination appears to be all possible risk.