3 ms·

I mean, you really ought to be able to experiment with explosives in a free country, as long as you're not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone. It's obviou

I mean, you really ought to be able to experiment with explosives in a free country, as long as you're not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone. It's obviously legal when companies in the industry do it. Why shouldn't it be for private citizens.

RareSoft 7y ago
I was under the impression that like firearms in the UK you need to have special licenses to use explosives that people can apply for https://www.hse.gov.uk/explosives/licensing/how-to-apply.htm https://www.hse.gov.uk/explosives/licensing/how-to-apply.htm
- razakel 7y ago
  If you're thinking of an EPP licence, that's only for a handful of specifically restricted chemicals.
Someone 7y ago
”as long as you're not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone” By that definition, car racing on public streets, running red lights and ignoring speed limits is absolutely fine, as long as you’re not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone. Regulations that limit the risks people get exposed to exist for a reason: you can’t undo damage done to others by punishing the culprit. That’s why, for example, reckless driving is illegal. Lots of things are only legal, not when companies do it, but when those doing it follow safety protocols.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  No one was alleging that him keeping the explosives at home was putting anyone but himself at risk, which makes it crucially different from speeding. The idea behind these explosives laws is to catch people intending to cause harm while they are plotting.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rcurry 7y ago
  You’re talking apples and oranges here - public streets are filled with, well, the public, and we have laws against racing and running red lights for that very reason. On the other hand, if you own forty acres in New Mexico and want to blow up an old washing machine with a pound of C4 on a lazy Saturday afternoon, well, more power to ya.
  - Someone 7y ago
    I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to do that, just that, if society sets rules, they should be followed, and can restrict what you can and cannot do. For example, if you buy that C4, how does it get on your land? If you make it yourself, how do the ingredients get on your land? Is that safe for the public? Does the process produce waste (gases, liquids) that may cause damage to neighbors or the environment? If one of your experiments doesn’t go ‘boom’, do you toss what’s left in the garbage bin, or do you think that should be regulated? Do you make precautions so that playing kids can’t accidentally enter the area? Do you calculate how far parts of that washing machine may get thrown away, to make sure parts don’t end up in your neighbors house?
- tathougies 7y ago
  No, I think experimenting with explosives on public streets should be illegal. But experimenting them on your private property or that of someone else who has let you do so should be legal. I also think car racing should be legal on private property.
xxpor 7y ago
I've always wondered about the legality of videos like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4JUQaLHriU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4JUQaLHriU
RHSeeger 7y ago
> as long as you're not hurting anyone I think the problem is that, much of the time, there's no way to know _if_ someone is planning on causing harm with certain tools until it's too late; until they actually cause the harm. While it would be nice to allow everyone to have anything they want (as long as they're not going to hurt anyone else), sometimes it's necessary to take away some rights in order to protect the greater good. Sometimes it's necessary to make compromises, sometimes there's tradeoffs.
- jlokier 7y ago
  > I think the problem is that, much of the time, there's no way to know _if_ someone is planning on causing harm In this case, the judgement was to decide if it's lawful to make a damp-firework's worth of explosives even if everyone agrees there's no harmful intent, or even any realistic capability to cause harm ("small amounts to produce insignificant detonations"). You can see this in the dissenting judges opinions, where they conclude that it's unlawful when only asking about "personal experimentation or own private education". There is no mention of balancing personal freedom against risks to greater society, or evaluation of whether it might be used for harm, or if the quantities produced could ever cause any real harm to anyone. I find the quoted summary of the dissenting opinion strange: > “to say that something is done for one’s own private education is not a sufficient object for the purposes of the section 4(1) defence, as it does not identify the use to which the explosives will be put in order to provide such education. > “Similarly, personal experimentation is not a sufficient object for this purpose as, although it identifies in very general terms what is to be done with the explosives, it does not identify any purpose for so doing.” Reading that, I can't help thinking that personal experimentation is what is to be done, and private education is the purpose for so doing. But I'm not a judge, and that won't be the whole opinion.
eh78ssxv2f 7y ago
> It's obviously legal when companies in the industry do it. I'm not familiar with specific laws in UK, but it's possible that the industry has to seek a license before they start experimenting with explosives.

RareSoft 7y ago

I was under the impression that like firearms in the UK you need to have special licenses to use explosives that people can apply for https://www.hse.gov.uk/explosives/licensing/how-to-apply.htm https://www.hse.gov.uk/explosives/licensing/how-to-apply.htm

razakel 7y ago
If you're thinking of an EPP licence, that's only for a handful of specifically restricted chemicals.

Someone 7y ago

”as long as you're not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone” By that definition, car racing on public streets, running red lights and ignoring speed limits is absolutely fine, as long as you’re not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone. Regulations that limit the risks people get exposed to exist for a reason: you can’t undo damage done to others by punishing the culprit. That’s why, for example, reckless driving is illegal. Lots of things are only legal, not when companies do it, but when those doing it follow safety protocols.

jessriedel 7y ago
No one was alleging that him keeping the explosives at home was putting anyone but himself at risk, which makes it crucially different from speeding. The idea behind these explosives laws is to catch people intending to cause harm while they are plotting.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rcurry 7y ago
You’re talking apples and oranges here - public streets are filled with, well, the public, and we have laws against racing and running red lights for that very reason. On the other hand, if you own forty acres in New Mexico and want to blow up an old washing machine with a pound of C4 on a lazy Saturday afternoon, well, more power to ya.
- Someone 7y ago
  I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to do that, just that, if society sets rules, they should be followed, and can restrict what you can and cannot do. For example, if you buy that C4, how does it get on your land? If you make it yourself, how do the ingredients get on your land? Is that safe for the public? Does the process produce waste (gases, liquids) that may cause damage to neighbors or the environment? If one of your experiments doesn’t go ‘boom’, do you toss what’s left in the garbage bin, or do you think that should be regulated? Do you make precautions so that playing kids can’t accidentally enter the area? Do you calculate how far parts of that washing machine may get thrown away, to make sure parts don’t end up in your neighbors house?
tathougies 7y ago
No, I think experimenting with explosives on public streets should be illegal. But experimenting them on your private property or that of someone else who has let you do so should be legal. I also think car racing should be legal on private property.

xxpor 7y ago

I've always wondered about the legality of videos like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4JUQaLHriU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4JUQaLHriU

RHSeeger 7y ago

> as long as you're not hurting anyone I think the problem is that, much of the time, there's no way to know _if_ someone is planning on causing harm with certain tools until it's too late; until they actually cause the harm. While it would be nice to allow everyone to have anything they want (as long as they're not going to hurt anyone else), sometimes it's necessary to take away some rights in order to protect the greater good. Sometimes it's necessary to make compromises, sometimes there's tradeoffs.

jlokier 7y ago
> I think the problem is that, much of the time, there's no way to know _if_ someone is planning on causing harm In this case, the judgement was to decide if it's lawful to make a damp-firework's worth of explosives even if everyone agrees there's no harmful intent, or even any realistic capability to cause harm ("small amounts to produce insignificant detonations"). You can see this in the dissenting judges opinions, where they conclude that it's unlawful when only asking about "personal experimentation or own private education". There is no mention of balancing personal freedom against risks to greater society, or evaluation of whether it might be used for harm, or if the quantities produced could ever cause any real harm to anyone. I find the quoted summary of the dissenting opinion strange: > “to say that something is done for one’s own private education is not a sufficient object for the purposes of the section 4(1) defence, as it does not identify the use to which the explosives will be put in order to provide such education. > “Similarly, personal experimentation is not a sufficient object for this purpose as, although it identifies in very general terms what is to be done with the explosives, it does not identify any purpose for so doing.” Reading that, I can't help thinking that personal experimentation is what is to be done, and private education is the purpose for so doing. But I'm not a judge, and that won't be the whole opinion.

eh78ssxv2f 7y ago

> It's obviously legal when companies in the industry do it. I'm not familiar with specific laws in UK, but it's possible that the industry has to seek a license before they start experimenting with explosives.