Current Events > So we're firing tear gas at migrants.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/25/us-mexico-border-crossing-closes-migrants

Just in case anyone needed an update on how alternatively joyous or disgusted you want to feel today.
---

Some people are probably upset that this doesn't go far enough.

I saw some guy on here a few days ago mention how he wished that there were livestreams at the border so we could "see what happens to the migrants when our boys decide to open fire"
---

Gotta stop them before history books start calling them pioneers
---

US didn't want em. now Tijuana doesn't want em.

simple as that, they'll kick em out in any way possible.
---

Why is this at all shocking? Tear gas is one of the most commonly used methods to disperse angry, uncontrollable crowds. It is used domestically in every developed country in the world.
---

It also banned from use during warfare
---

So we're firing tear gas at migrants who breach the fence.

Important details left out.

I'm not saying I agree with the situation, but it's not like they were standing by idly.
---

If that was the only non-lethal way to disperse the ones trying to come illegally, Im ok with it. Even CNN wrote that it was used on people trying to cross illegally.

tbh I dont know much about tear gas though
---

Isn't tear gas what is commonly used to disperse crowds non lethally?
---

isn't tc gaslighting?
---

Funkydog posted...

Isn't tear gas what is commonly used to disperse crowds non lethally?

Yep.
---

American sovereignty is worth fighting for; worth dying for.

DanAnsumHandsom posted...

isn't tc gaslighting?

That is all he is good for.
---

*invaders
---

Antifar posted...

It also banned from use during warfare

How exactly do you suppose they should clear an unruly crowd throwing rocks and trying to force their way illegally into a country?
---

Monolith1676 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Isn't tear gas what is commonly used to disperse crowds non lethally?

Yep.

This doesn't necessarily make it alright mind, as it is banned for use in war. Which tells you plenty about it, and makes it very odd it is okay to use on your own civilians, but not others.
---

Funkydog posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Isn't tear gas what is commonly used to disperse crowds non lethally?

Yep.

This doesn't necessarily make it alright mind, as it is banned for use in war. Which tells you plenty about it, and makes it very odd it is okay to use on your own civilians, but not others.

Tear gas is not bad at all. It is just banned in war because they banned all forms of gas warfare.
---

I'm confused why they are firing tear gas at people breaching the border instead of bullets.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Isn't tear gas what is commonly used to disperse crowds non lethally?

Yep.

This doesn't necessarily make it alright mind, as it is banned for use in war. Which tells you plenty about it, and makes it very odd it is okay to use on your own civilians, but not others.

Tear gas is not bad at all. It is just banned in war because they bammed all forms of gas warfare.

This
It's a lot easier to outright ban chemical warfare than it is to create a million exceptions and risk having something awful used in war because of a loophole.
---

Frostshock posted...

I'm confused why they are firing tear gas at people breaching the border instead of bullets.

Please explain why you are confused that unarmed civilians are not being shot.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

Tear gas is not bad at all. It is just banned in war because they bammed all forms of gas warfare.

That's simply not true. It can be very dangerous, when not used correctly. Which can routinely often when just fired into crowds.
---

Frostshock posted...

I'm confused why they are firing tear gas at people breaching the border instead of bullets.

Because they don't want an international incident.

That's literally what this has come down to. Protecting our border would be considered and international incident.
---

Antifar posted...

It also banned from use during warfare

Are the migrants now at war with the US?

Frostshock posted...

I'm confused why they are firing tear gas at people breaching the border instead of bullets.

Frostshock posted...

Got questions about schoolwork? Want to share answers, or discuss your studies? Come to Homework Helpers!
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1060-homework-helpers

---

I mean, we fire tear gas at our own protestors, I hardly doubt they would make an exception for migrants.
---

Funkydog posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Tear gas is not bad at all. It is just banned in war because they bammed all forms of gas warfare.

That's simply not true. It can be very dangerous, when not used correctly. Which can routinely often when just fired into crowds.

....what? How is it dangerous?
---

Antifar posted...

It also banned from use during warfare

Wtf are you talking about?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-police-tear-gas

Teargas is routinely used during protests
---

an unruly mob forcefully trying to cross the border

fair next
---

The23rdMagus posted...

Frostshock posted...

I'm confused why they are firing tear gas at people breaching the border instead of bullets.

Please explain why you are confused that unarmed civilians are not being shot.

Would someone trying to break through customs at the airport not be shot?

Your country loves shooting people, so I'm confused that they're not.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Tear gas is not bad at all. It is just banned in war because they bammed all forms of gas warfare.

That's simply not true. It can be very dangerous, when not used correctly. Which can routinely often when just fired into crowds.

....what? How is it dangerous?

Tear gas, formally known as a lachrymator agent or lachrymator (from the Latin lacrima, meaning "tear"), sometimes colloquially known as mace,[NB 1] is a chemical weapon that causes severe eye and respiratory pain, skin irritation, bleeding, and even blindness.

As with all non-lethal, or less-lethal weapons, there is some risk of serious permanent injury or death when tear gas is used.[6][7][1] This includes risks from being hit by tear gas cartridges, which include severe bruising, loss of eyesight, skull fracture, and even death.[8] A case of serious vascular injury from tear gas shells has also been reported from Iran, with high rates of associated nerve injury (44%) and amputation (17%),[9] as well as instances of head injuries in young people.[10]

While the medical consequences of the gases themselves are typically limited to minor skin inflammation, delayed complications are also possible: people with pre-existing respiratory conditions such as asthma, who are particularly at risk, are likely to need medical attention[2] and may sometimes require hospitalization or even ventilation support.[11] Skin exposure to CS may cause chemical burns[12] or induce allergic contact dermatitis.[2][3] When people are hit at close range or are severely exposed, eye injuries involving scarring of the cornea can lead to a permanent loss in visual acuity.[13] Frequent or high levels of exposure carry increased risks of respiratory illness.[1]

There is plenty of danger with them, ultimately.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Tear gas is not bad at all. It is just banned in war because they bammed all forms of gas warfare.

That's simply not true. It can be very dangerous, when not used correctly. Which can routinely often when just fired into crowds.

....what? How is it dangerous?

There's some serious long term issues if there's prolonged exposure to it, but that's not going to happen out in the open. You'd have to fire it into an enclosed room with no ventilation.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Antifar posted...

It also banned from use during warfare

Wtf are you talking about?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-police-tear-gas

Teargas is routinely used during protests

Yes. Which is not mutually exclusive with it being banned for use during warfare.
---

Frostshock posted...

The23rdMagus posted...

Frostshock posted...

I'm confused why they are firing tear gas at people breaching the border instead of bullets.

Please explain why you are confused that unarmed civilians are not being shot.

Would someone trying to break through customs at the airport not be shot?

Your country loves shooting people, so I'm confused that they're not.

I see your point now. No, we shouldn't be employing lethal force against anyone who is not immediately able and threatening to do the same.
---

I think teargas is banned during warfare because you could conceivably teargas the enemy then slaughter them.

We don't want to kill the migrants.
---

well at least they aren't firing bullets like people thought might happen
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

We don't want to kill the migrants.

It worries me that this is even remotely up for debate. There's a disturbingly significant and vocal minority.
---

Funkydog posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Funkydog posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Tear gas is not bad at all. It is just banned in war because they bammed all forms of gas warfare.

That's simply not true. It can be very dangerous, when not used correctly. Which can routinely often when just fired into crowds.

....what? How is it dangerous?

Tear gas, formally known as a lachrymator agent or lachrymator (from the Latin lacrima, meaning "tear"), sometimes colloquially known as mace,[NB 1] is a chemical weapon that causes severe eye and respiratory pain, skin irritation, bleeding, and even blindness.

As with all non-lethal, or less-lethal weapons, there is some risk of serious permanent injury or death when tear gas is used.[6][7][1] This includes risks from being hit by tear gas cartridges, which include severe bruising, loss of eyesight, skull fracture, and even death.[8] A case of serious vascular injury from tear gas shells has also been reported from Iran, with high rates of associated nerve injury (44%) and amputation (17%),[9] as well as instances of head injuries in young people.[10]

While the medical consequences of the gases themselves are typically limited to minor skin inflammation, delayed complications are also possible: people with pre-existing respiratory conditions such as asthma, who are particularly at risk, are likely to need medical attention[2] and may sometimes require hospitalization or even ventilation support.[11] Skin exposure to CS may cause chemical burns[12] or induce allergic contact dermatitis.[2][3] When people are hit at close range or are severely exposed, eye injuries involving scarring of the cornea can lead to a permanent loss in visual acuity.[13] Frequent or high levels of exposure carry increased risks of respiratory illness.[1]

There is plenty of danger with them, ultimately.

Sounds no more dangerous than just walking outside.
---

Antifar posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Antifar posted...

It also banned from use during warfare

Wtf are you talking about?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-police-tear-gas

Teargas is routinely used during protests

Yes. Which is not mutually exclusive with it being banned for use during warfare.

True, but youre making it sound like its so terrible that isnt even allowed in warfare. If that wasnt your intention, ignore it. But the reason tear gas isnt allowed in war isnt because teargas happens to be more horrible than a lot of other things already used in war, but because of specific contextual situation that makes tear gas more indirectly lethal in a war zone. Such is not the case for protest environments, hence why teargas is allowed to be used. Anyone can look it up if theyre interested, the distinction I made is important I think.
---

Hopefully these migrants heed the warnings and stop trying to hop the border. Whip that caravan around and go back home.
---

"Migrants"
---

Godnorgosh posted...

YodaCrackers posted...

Antifar posted...

It also banned from use during warfare

How exactly do you suppose they should clear an unruly crowd throwing rocks and trying to force their way illegally into a country?

They shouldn't.

What the fuck is wrong with people like you
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

YodaCrackers posted...

Antifar posted...

It also banned from use during warfare

How exactly do you suppose they should clear an unruly crowd throwing rocks and trying to force their way illegally into a country?

They shouldn't.

What the fuck is wrong with people like you

They want to end America because they're jealous that other people have more corn than they do.

Godnorgosh posted...

YodaCrackers posted...

Antifar posted...

It also banned from use during warfare

How exactly do you suppose they should clear an unruly crowd throwing rocks and trying to force their way illegally into a country?

They shouldn't.

LOL
---

As our climate crisis grows worse, so too will border enforcement.
---

SH_expert44 posted...

Hopefully these migrants heed the warnings and stop trying to hop the border. Whip that caravan around and go back home.

There has to be something significant about the state of "home" that would prompt this many people to flee from it.
---

The23rdMagus posted...

SH_expert44 posted...

Hopefully these migrants heed the warnings and stop trying to hop the border. Whip that caravan around and go back home.

There has to be something significant about the state of "home" that would prompt this many people to flee from it.

Let's see what Honduras has been up to:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article221908900.html
---

It says 500 migrants that tried to violently and illegally cross the border. And we're acting that tear gas is the worst part in all this?
---