4 ms·

If the intent is to protect people from phosphorus, I'd just like to point out that you can buy large amounts of gasoline without any paperwork, without even ra

If the intent is to protect people from phosphorus, I'd just like to point out that you can buy large amounts of gasoline without any paperwork, without even raising any eyebrows. If somebody wants to commit arson, bullshit regulations on phosphorus won't stop them. Nor does it require any knowledge a gradeschooler doesn't possess. This isn't even academic, a maniac killed 36 people like this in Japan last year. If the point is being missed, then what is the point being missed? What does regulating small amounts of phosphorus actually accomplish in a society where gasoline is available in every neighborhood?

leetcrew 7y ago
I share your position, but the obvious counterpart to this is that many regular people need access to gasoline as part of their daily lives. not so with phosphorus. 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.
- chickenpotpie 7y ago
  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.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > 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.
    - chickenpotpie 7y ago
      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.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    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.
- catalogia 7y ago
  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.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    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.
- nwallin 7y ago
  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.
MaulingMonkey 7y ago
Gasoline is regulated. Trucks transporting large quantities of it requires hazmat registration for the safety of first responders. Zoning regulations limit and regulate how large quantities of gasoline can be stored. Try parking a gas tanker in a residential HOA without proper hazmat plates and see how long it goes "without even raising any eyebrows". Try driving one without a hazmat license and see how long you get away with it. Now, yes, regulating tiny amounts of phosophorus might be a bit much. But I'm pretty sure you'd object to an unregulated chemical plant next door - those things can be dangerous even with well trained, well meaning personel. The question, then, is where to draw the line, not if it should be drawn at all.
- catalogia 7y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack
  - MaulingMonkey 7y ago
    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/1337 https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11498 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.

leetcrew 7y ago

I share your position, but the obvious counterpart to this is that many regular people need access to gasoline as part of their daily lives. not so with phosphorus. 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.

chickenpotpie 7y ago
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.
- catalogia 7y ago
  > 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.
  - chickenpotpie 7y ago
    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.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  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.
catalogia 7y ago
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.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  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.
nwallin 7y ago
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.

MaulingMonkey 7y ago

Gasoline is regulated. Trucks transporting large quantities of it requires hazmat registration for the safety of first responders. Zoning regulations limit and regulate how large quantities of gasoline can be stored. Try parking a gas tanker in a residential HOA without proper hazmat plates and see how long it goes "without even raising any eyebrows". Try driving one without a hazmat license and see how long you get away with it. Now, yes, regulating tiny amounts of phosophorus might be a bit much. But I'm pretty sure you'd object to an unregulated chemical plant next door - those things can be dangerous even with well trained, well meaning personel. The question, then, is where to draw the line, not if it should be drawn at all.

catalogia 7y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack
- MaulingMonkey 7y ago
  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/1337 https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11498 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.