Title.
In: 4
It’s due to the threat of escalation.
When national army A uses tear gas against national army B, there is a credible threat national army B might respond with Chlorine gas. And Army A might then toss out some Mustard Gas to which Army B responds with something like Sarin gas and so on and so forth. Ever nastier, ever more potent, ever harder to protect against or contain. So to keep things from getting out of hand, the powers that be slapped a ban on chemical weapons use in warfare.
When it’s a crowd of protesters versus the cops, there is no threat of escalation. If the cops lob tear gas into the crowd of protesters, no one in the crowd is back there whipping up mustard gas or chlorine gas (hopefully) which they can lob back at the cops. Because where national armies are backed by a munitions industry, protesters have no such infrastructure standing behind them. It starts with tear gas, and it ends with tear gas.
So because of the potential for escalation in war, and the lack of potential for escalation in ‘crowd control’ situations, tear gas is permitted for the later. Not that this is good or just or right. It’s just the official explanation. Also, the US makes the stuff in Western PA, and our government sort of specializes in dealing weapons around the globe. So we sell it to our cops and the cops in other nations for use against their own people, because our leaders have sold us all out so blatantly they have cause to fear us little people rising up against them. Knowing tear gas exists, and the cops they pay to protect their property from us poors will deploy it against us makes the 1%ers sleep a little easier at night.
Latest Answers