Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#61

Post by chickenpotpie »

catalogia wrote: post #59
chickenpotpie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#62

Post by dntbnmpls »

gamblor956 wrote: post #19
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free states write laws that criminalize harmful actions. Police states write laws that criminalize possessing things that could be used harmfully.

By that definition, there are no free states except for Somalia, as nearly all countries except for the US ban private ownership of firearms.

Almost all nations allow private ownership of firearms. It's just the degree of hurdles you have to jump through that is different.

Off the top of my head, the only nation that I know explicitly bans private ownership of firearms is North Korea.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#63

Post by _jal »

Causality1 wrote: post #7

22 months in jail for making "damp firework" level explosives. What a travesty.

In my wayward youth, a friend of mine and I made nitroglycerin and had a lot of fun detonating it. This was a very rural area, nobody said a word back then.

I've often thought that if I were 20 years younger, I'd be in jail for a long time for my youthful indiscretions.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#64

Post by jlokier »

nraynaud wrote: post #48
anfilt wrote: post #5

I hate how chemistry can land people in legal hot water due to overzealous government policies. While this example is not in the UK. It's illegal to own certain glassware without a permit in Texas for instance. The glassware is considered a drug precursor, like freaking glassware. Oh also federally the DEA treats Phosphorus as a type 1 precursor to meth. That's a freaking element! An element is illegal/regulated like…

“It’s just an element” is not good enough as a discriminator, plutonium and polonium are elements, and I want them heavily regulated. Now, I a bit skeptical of putting Phosphorus into the drug law, it has too many uses and not too many inherent ills.

Elemental white phosphorus has some quite nasty dangers associated.

"Phossy jaw" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phossy_jaw

"'The Devil's element': the dark side of phosphorus" https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/oct/31/the-dev...

"White phosphorus 'burns to the bone'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-368800/White-phosph...

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#65

Post by hyperpallium »

> made explosives and detonated them remotely in his back garden by means of a mobile phone signal.

Scary. But amount was similar to a firework, and he had done so several times before. And he's autistic.

> liable to prosecution unless they can show that it was “for a lawful object”

> can personal experimentation or own private education, absent some ulterior unlawful purpose, be regarded as a lawful object?

They still had to prove that that was his purpose - the onus is on the defence. i.e. reversing assumption of innocence.

The dissent, that the purpose of education is not a "purpose" is ridiculous.

Yet, I bet the legislators didn't intend such a broad defence, and we'll quickly see amending legislation confining it, given terrorism fears.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#66

Post by rcurry »

Someone wrote: post #25
tathougies wrote: post #3

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.

”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 driv…

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.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#67

Post by [deleted] »

smth_mst_b_done wrote: post #49
pjc50 wrote: post #12

For context, the UK has suffered a number of terrorist bombings over the years; explosives are controlled substances, and anyone making them without a license will have the terrorism book thrown at them. Not really much point in spending two decades in Afghanistan "fighting terrorism" if you're going to let people brew TATP in their bathtubs like the 7/7 bombers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombi…

"The Explosive Substances Act was quickly passed by parliament in 1883 in response to fears of Irish nationalist bomb attacks and because previous offences were thought to provide insufficient protection for the public." Looking at the above list, it seems that terrorists are going to make bombs despite this venerable law. Who would have thought!

[deleted]

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#68

Post by moron4hire »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #58
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free states write laws that criminalize harmful actions. Police states write laws that criminalize possessing things that could be used harmfully.

> Free states write laws that criminalize harmful actions. Police states write laws that criminalize possessing things that could be used harmfully. Would you agree that nukes run afoul of that reasoning?

Would you agree that using nukes as an example is arguing in bad faith because they are prohibitively expensive to acquire, even if they were deregulated? It's not like weapons grade uranium is just sitting around. You literally have to make it, which is "state actor" level of hard work.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#69

Post by rcurry »

londons_explore wrote: post #18
Causality1 wrote: post #7

22 months in jail for making "damp firework" level explosives. What a travesty.

Years ago I remember school mates competing for the prize of "loudest bang from 1 gram". If they did that now, I reckon they'd all be in prison...

When I was ten years old, I used to bicycle from my grandfather’s house to his farm property eight miles away. I’d sling my .22 rifle on the back of the bike so I could go hunt rabbits and as I pedaled down the highway in the hot California sun, I’d pray that I’d run into a cop because they’d always pull over, throw my bike and my rifle in the trunk of their squad car and give me a ride up the road to the property.

Good times.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#70

Post by [deleted] »

3pt14159 wrote: post #13
anfilt wrote: post #5

I hate how chemistry can land people in legal hot water due to overzealous government policies. While this example is not in the UK. It's illegal to own certain glassware without a permit in Texas for instance. The glassware is considered a drug precursor, like freaking glassware. Oh also federally the DEA treats Phosphorus as a type 1 precursor to meth. That's a freaking element! An element is illegal/regulated like…

In D&D there is a certain type of spell called Power Word Kill which works slightly differently based on the version of D&D you're playing with, but the effect is that it essentially kills a single individual with a single word. I'm not saying phosphorus should be legal or illegal, but at some point "it's just a packet I sent on the internet" or "it's just a PDF I sent to someone overseas" or "it's just an element" m…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN