I can't think of a reason why silver nitrate, AgNo3, is considered a dangerous chemical. It is listed as an oxidizer, but it is less caustic than household bleach which is also an oxidizer. For many decades it was standard medical practice to apply silver nitrate topically to newborn infants. It is probably one of the most studied substances in chemistry and human contact with it has been extensive for nearly two centuries. About the worst thing it does is stain your fingers if you're not careful. But a felt pen will do the same thing.
From an ancient chemistry class I do remember that silver compounds can form a percussion explosive similar to fulminate of mercury. But we live in the United States, if you want an explosive you can buy bullets or gunpowder.
The first instinct of government is to tax and forbid. Denying people reasonable access to chemicals might be an unconstitutional infringement on their liberty. PE is right when he suggests that there is an anti-chemical bias out there. It's like Galileo and the church, "Who is the Pope to say that Jupiter has no moons, when they are there in the sky for everyone to see?" He never got the Inquisition to look through his telescope, and scientists will never get bureaucrats to learn the first thing about chemistry.
However, on the bright side, with the declining economy many merchants are allowed to sell scarce chemicals as a way to help business. Did film manufacturers hinder the sale of silver nitrate in order to boost the sale of their own films and papers?