An Evolving Question: Kryptonite and the Law Under Superman's Existence

Ever since Superman first gained mainstream popularity, discussions about his mysterious green crystal, Kryptonite, have been a staple in fan debates. But what if Kryptonite was real, and the existence of such a dangerous material conjured the question: Should it be made illegal to own, or would it be easier to uphold the right to bear Kryptonite?

Realistic Comparisons: Kryptonite vs. Traditional Dangerous Materials

Comparing Kryptonite to traditional dangerous materials, such as nuclear weapons or radioactive material, highlights the unique nature of Kryptonite. Guns are not radioactive, and compared to Kryptonite, they are much more contained in their harmful effects. Not all radioactive materials are banned, but they are strictly regulated due to the risk of targeting and harming those nearby. The same logic can be applied to Kryptonite. Simply put, Kryptonite cannot be targeted in the same way, as it harms anyone in its vicinity just by existing.

The Potential Dangers and Ethical Considerations

Assuming Superman were to go mad, the implications of Kryptonite’s legality are staggering. If Kryptonite were to be available to anyone, and then later used against Superman, the consequences would be catastrophic. With any ordinary person possessing Kryptonite, they would be at risk, as anyone could use it to harm Superman. Additionally, the danger would not be limited to Superman; it would disintegrate Kryptonite, thereby harming the user as well.

The severity of Kryptonite’s potential for harming non-Superman individuals raises moral questions. If Kryptonite could cause illnesses like cancer, even in non-Superman humans, the legal framework must account for these risks. If the government were to stockpile and weaponize Kryptonite, it would be a step towards safeguarding the populace. Such a move would be justified as a precautionary measure, given the potential for public harm.

Personal Precautions and Legal Approaches

For everyday citizens, the right to own Kryptonite might be a bridge too far. Possessing a dangerous substance like Kryptonite for reasons beyond personal safety risks unnecessary harm. Individuals might feel that they need to own Kryptonite as a safeguard against potential threats, but such an attitude stands on shaky ground. As noted, ‘weapons make you a warrior’ is an outdated notion. Far too many people believe that owning Kryptonite makes them a protector, but in reality, the average person is ill-equipped to handle such a dangerous material.

In a worst-case scenario, if Clark Kent were to lose control and become a danger to society, having a stockpile of Kryptonite could provide some level of safety. However, it’s essential to recognize that the individual risk is far greater than the collective benefit. Organizations and governments, not individuals, should handle such dangerous materials to minimize public risk.

The Government's Role in Ensuring Safety

The government must step in to ensure public safety in the event of Superman’s existence. Given the unique nature of Kryptonite, the government’s role should be to safeguard the population through regulated stockpiles and controlled use. It is their responsibility to protect citizens from the potential dangers of Kryptonite.

The right to own Kryptonite for personal use is a non-starter. Kryptonite’s inherent risks make it an impractical choice for general ownership. While personal ownership might seem like an empowering stance, it is fraught with the potential for misuse and unintended consequences.

In summary, the question of Kryptonite’s legality under Superman’s existence is complex and multifaceted. The focus should be on government oversight, safety measures, and responsible use of this dangerous material, rather than individual ownership.