Right, so why is nobody instead saying that exploit sales should be regulated? Why are most people drawing such stark distinctions between exploit weapons and meatspace weapons?
Meatspace weapons are easy to detect since most/all modes of transportation between nations is monitored and recorded, meanwhile exploit weapons are quite impossible to manage in the same fashion.
Decentralized and obfuscated means of communication make it easy to engage in this behavior at scale, for example Tor and Bitcoin.
Meatspace weapons of significant destructive capabilities are also large and bulky, too.
That doesn't explain why they need to be completely outlawed rather than more strictly controlled, or some other medium.
Also, if exploits are "quite impossible" to manage like regular weapons(and I agree that is probably the case, see how crypto export controls worked out), it goes both ways - any laws passed outlawing trafficking in weapons will be impossible to enforce.
I agree that they would be impossible to enforce, but there are quite a few nations across the world that have achieved minimal gun ownership and relatively high levels of safety.
They have cultures that emphasize an open and diplomatic dialog with the community, and they support trust and reciprocation between law enforcement and common people. Meanwhile the most heavily armed citizenry see it as an existential necessity, which breeds distrust and fear.
Consider for a moment the simple and logical decision-making processes between two logical individuals of equal threat to each-other but deeply suspicious -- if one advocates disarmament then the other will view it with suspicion. In actuality the danger is non-existent, but (for example) an ignorant third-party under the protection of one would screech at the very idea of deescalation.
My point is that weapons control is as much about perceived safety as it is about defensive and offensive capabilities.
