zlacker

> If police are going to use force, from what I have seen, tear gas is less dangerous. It is still awful. I'd rather it not be used, but I just wanted to share what I've seen.

It's worth noting here that tear gas is generally prohibited to use during wartime. Bunch of treaties that countries have signed forbids the usage of tear gas.

But, seems what's not fine to use in war against enemy combatants, is fine to use against your own people in order to control crowds of people. Something here feels wrong, if it's put like this.

I'm neither agreeing/disagreeing with you, just worth noting how the rest of the world considers tear gas.

>>diggan+(OP)
I suspect those sorts of blanket bans for warfare had more to do with easing enforcement (are those canisters tear gas or nerve gas? Doesn't matter, they're banned) and reducing availability of equipment that could easily be re-purposed to deliver lethal or maiming chemical weapons than any particular horror associated with tear gas per se. I mean bombs are allowed in war, but my preference for getting badly tear-gassed rather than having a bomb fall anywhere near me is pretty high.

(Nb I don't intend this as support of any particular actions by the police lately)

>>karate+R9
Part of the rationale is that tear gas and other chemical weapons are indiscriminate. When you aim a bomb or gun, you know what you're aiming at, and if a civilian is in your sights, you can choose not to fire.

Once you release chemical weapons, you can't control them, they go wherever the wind takes them. This could be in the direction of civilians or friendly troops.

Here in Seattle they used so much tear gas in Capitol Hill last night that it was seeping into homes. A coworker reported that his 3 month old child woke up coughing like crazy.