
Details Dumped from Tear Gas Manufacturers - riddlr
http://warpolrelease.bitbucket.org
======
zo1
Wow, I had no idea that tear-gas is a chemical weapon. Banned from being used
in warfare, but A-OK to be used on your own populace? Just, wow.

~~~
dmix
Same with Hollow-point bullets. Legal for Police to use but illegal in war:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-
point_bullet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet)

> Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most
> common types of bullets used by civilians and police,[4] which is due
> largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or
> ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation.

~~~
IkmoIkmo
Heh, crazy. In the Netherlands there's now a discussion flaring up again about
what looks like an assassination by the Dutch army of a group of Moluccan
hijackers looking to bring independence for their people (part of Dutch colony
Indonesia shifting towards independence).

One salient fact that arose recently is the use of hollow point bullets.

Why is this controversial? Because for incapacitation, not assassination,
regular bullets would apparently have been more effective. (and of course, an
order for such an assassination would've been extremely controversial, in fact
illegal)

Pretty crazy to think such hollow points are standard issue in some places.

~~~
hga
" _Because for incapacitation, not assassination, regular bullets would
apparently have been more effective._ "

Absolutely and totally false.

At the most fundamental level, you want the bullets to dump their energy in
the target body. "Regular", as in Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullets are smooth
and slippery, and more readily pass through a body (and are more likely to
cause greater harm to anyone behind).

Hollow point bullets, if you're lucky, expand (which uses up some energy), and
that larger bullet does more damage in its passage (also using up more of its
energy).

Here's the key question you're implicitly asking: do you want to stop or kill
the target? Per the above, unless you get a lucky hit on the central nervous
system (CNS), people who get shot stop because they don't want to get shot
again (perhaps 1/2 of the criminals shot in the US), the rest when they've
lost enough blood, which bigger wound channels, destroying more tissue, do a
better job of.

If you just want to kill someone, pump a lot of holes in them all the way
through, for which FMJ is best. It'll be much harder for anyone to patch them
up before they die of blood loss.

I put it as a simple law: lethality scales with number of hits, stopping power
with the diameter of the bullet.

Caveat: if you don't luck out with a CNS hit or convincing the target he
doesn't want to get shot again, there's a rather thin line between causing him
to lose enough blood to stop fighting, and losing enough to die. But he still
has a better chance to survive the former, and you and the other good guys
have a better chance of surviving because you took him out of the fight
faster.

~~~
atavistic
Just out of curiosity, and not because I want to single you out as a
representative of your species, but, a lot of firearms enthusiasts share some
common traits, and one of the more problematic ones is the obvious fallacy
that there are " _good guys_ " and then there are " _bad guys_ ", and that
only the " _good guys_ " are well-informed about proper weapons handling
procedures, and that's because they're focused on " _saving lives_ ".

Another frequently displayed characteristic is to become pedantic about the
technical aspects of gun specifications, and the precise language and acronyms
surrounding tactics for close-quarter battles, or indirect fire trajectories
or... whatever.

Do you guys realize the absurd cognitive dissonance of propping yourselves up
with the obvious fallacy of the " _good guys versus bad guys_ " routine,
especially when you stand it up next to an appeal to authority through opaque
vocabulary?

It may feel like you're winning the argument, but some of us are quick to see
through this repetitive display that so many of you cling to, when arguing
your point in favor of things like helping people bleed out faster, because
we're trying to " _save lives_ " here.

~~~
Dylan16807
None of that post talks about good and bad guys.

None of that post gets picky about terminology or tactics.

It's just a description of how different types of bullet hurt people in
different ways.

You're, uh, a little bit _too_ quick to jump on whatever you think you're
jumping on.

~~~
hga
Indeed; the curiously named "atavistic" seems to be lumping me into a
"species" (?) of humans I've never even heard of. Which I grant is possible,
I'm a Gun Culture 1.0 type by upbringing (e.g. hunting and bulls-eye target
shooting, even lettered in that in high school to my amazement) who since ...
high school or thereabouts became an early Gun Culture 2.0 type (e.g. self-
defense and sports based on that like IDPA and 3 Gun competitions (which I
might consider competing in if not for a bad knee)), but there are so many gun
subcultures in the US I might not have heard of the one he's referring to. Or
know anything about, like the perennially persecuted Pennsylvania pigeon
shooters. (But feel free to ask me how good moose minute steaks are. :-)

As far as good and bad guys, we might take it as axiomatic that a shooter
considers himself to be a good guy and his targets as bad guys (even if only
because he fears they could identify him after the crime), and therefore is at
least somewhat interested in "terminal ballistics". I tried to keep it value
neutral precisely because I wanted to focus on " _how different types of
bullet hurt people in different ways._ "

Needless to say, don't get me talking on "opaque vocabulary" unless you have a
desire to learn about all this and can use a glossary of jargon like
"permanent crush cavity", "hydro-static shock", etc. before diving into the
literature. But I hope I avoided that when talking to the general HN audience.

------
Joeboy
"Repository unavailable". I wonder what was in it.

------
jwilkins
FWIW, direct link to cached version of gopresto page:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:K6ckHm8...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:K6ckHm8Zg7gJ:warpolrelease.bitbucket.org/gopresto.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

here's the link the gopresto dump, from above

[http://rghost.net/private/58630972/989ff79551ac37019982d8117...](http://rghost.net/private/58630972/989ff79551ac37019982d81177050c64?r=113)

Missed cs_dump.txt though.

------
jcrawfordor
As a casual reviewer, I'm skeptical of the quality of the GoPresto dataset in
particular. Is it possible that this includes customers of a non-defense
company with the same owner, for example?

Some googling and local knowledge turns up a number of people in there who I
am quite confident are in no position to be purchasing teargas. I know they
said there was some bogus data, but I'm talking >50% suspect entries.

The other dataset looks perfectly good, though. Addresses/emails almost 100%
map to agencies or private security forces.

------
ropman76
Has anyone given any thought to what the Police will use for riot control if
tear gas is banned? I have been on the receiving end of Tear Gas. It was not a
pleasant experience . However after about an hour I was back on my feet and
good to go. As much as I didn't care for the tear gas, it would still cause
less damage to a protester to get gassed than getting hit by a rubber bullet
or a police baton.

------
dylangs1030
The repository is now down - here is a snapshot from the Wayback Machine:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141020203759/http://warpolrele...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141020203759/http://warpolrelease.bitbucket.org/)

Whether this is due to pressure or force from some authority or the author
simply changing his mind remains to be seen. Like another commenter said, I
have a sneaking suspicion that there will not be a long-lived "more to come"
section if it's down in the first 4 hours.

------
krick
3 hours on HN and still not removed from bitbucket by some authority? I'm a
bit surprised, because while the protest itself is nothing unusual given the
approach they chose — I mean breaking doors, disclosing sensitive information,
leave aside that it's not barbershops they are picking on, it's supposedly
serious (I didn't find much about them, so i don't know for sure), close-to-
military companies — it seems like something that won't be ignored. So, sadly,
"more to come" part will stay empty, I believe.

------
blueskin_
404.

------
nihaody
I mean cool story bro but wat about the more-than-less-than-lethal weapons
manufacturers?

