I hope the idiot that let this law about not being able to defend is burning in his stupidity.

Oh, you have got to be kidding.  That's all it did, huh?  It dispersed them?  That is one of the more amazing down-plays I've ever seen in my life.  People couldn't breathe and they were merely dispersed?  Go head with it, man, you do what you need to do to fit everything into your political viewpoint.  I just wanted to show that pepper spray has downside as well as upside, which is true of any form of weapon.  Why anyone would deny that, I do not understand.

However, since you wanted it:

December, 1993, Chicago: an unidentified person forced a school to evacuate after running through the hallways dispersing an entire canister of pepper spray.

In March 2003, Chicago: two mothers were arrested after the school their children attended had to be evacuated. The evacuation resulted from the two women feuding inside the school with pepper spray.

2007, FL – Astronaut and Feminist poster-girl Lisa Nowak confessed to lesser charges as part of a plea bargain in the attempted kidnapping and murder of Colleen Shipman. Nowak’s arsenal in the crime included pepper spray, an item Shipman testified that Nowak sprayed threw into her car window at the Orlando Airport.

September, 2010, a Topeka: woman was charged with five counts of aggravated battery after allegedly pepper spraying several individuals

June, 2011, Malta: a 76-year old man was pepper sprayed as he tempted to fend himself against two muggers.

June, 2011, Maryland: a 28 year old woman was taken into custody after she began taking photographs of a pregnant woman without permission. The ensuing argument resulted in the pregnant woman being pepper sprayed.

August, 2011: Abingdon, PA: a woman was victimized with pepper spray during a home invasion when two teens broke into her residence. The victim was not only a 77-year old senior but also a Holocaust survivor.

August, 2011, Brooksville, FL: 22-year old Danitra Hicks was arrested for driving to her cousin’s home and pepper spraying her. Hicks’ anger was attributed to a Facebook feud the two that had had earlier in the day.

Sept. 2011, Redcliffe, W. Australia: a former cop was charged for the assault of a man and of subsequently falsifying official documents about the incident. The cop was accused of having pepper sprayed the victim and dousing him with beer.

October, 2011, Mesa, AR: more than fifty people had to be evacuated from a psychiatric hospital when police thought using pepper spray would lure a runaway patient out of an air vent. The fumes from the spray traveled through the vent and into every room on the floor of the hospital.

Ongoing, Norfolk, VA: security guards hired by the Norfolk school district have been equipped with pepper spray since 1997. Despite a slew of complaints from parents the school officials are determined to continue the practice, even after an October incident when a female security guard blasted away to break up a food fight in one cafeteria. In this occasion the pepper spray hit several children not even involved in the food fight and sending all students in the cafeteria to the school nurse, and a few to the emergency room for inflammation of their asthma.

http://hubpages.com/politics/The-escalating-misuse-of-pepepr-spray

What's up with all these dumb laws?

The main theme I got from the cases you mentioned were misuse, whether the person had a terrible idea, using pepper spray in a state of irrationality, or was just being a total jackass. Out of all of them, only one of them could demonstrate that the pepper spray, itself, is dangerous depending on how the elderly man utilized it.

I'm perplexed as to why you're so mad at bouzane. My interpretation of his argument was that the problem wasn't the pepper spray, but the fact that the club held more people than it should and many exits were blocked. And then, you also have to ponder these questions. Was the pepper spray used with the knowledge that the club was overpacked? Was the person that used it aware of the fact that several exits were blocked?

That's it, pitch a fit, classic pokoko. My choice of words was poor but it beats having a pathetic argument backed up by such a poor example. The patrons couldn't breathe because of the mace, did they suffocate? No, they died because they were trampled which is a common occurance in overcrowded nightclubs. If all you can provide are examples of individuals misusing tear gases and disrupting gatherings or as part of physical attacks I can honestly say that you have done virtually nothing to justify government enforced bans on these sprays. I know exactly why it took so much to force you to provide further examples of the misuse of tear gases, because they are rather unimpressive. I know that getting maced will cause you agony, disable you for hours or days and make buildings uninhabitable. I'm not downplaying their potency. What I am downplaying is their lethality. Tear gases are not fatal unless you use them in a situation which would have resulted in death regardless (such as the nightclub example you provided). I don't think I could have cleared out that school (without burning it to the ground) but so what, you still haven't given me a compelling reason for their ban. I once again have to reiterate my point that tear gases make great defensive, non-lethal weapons that should be legally carried because they can be used to prevent violent attacks with minimal harm to the perpetrators. I want you to give me a compelling reason as to why they should be restricted let alone outlawed outright because isolated cases of their misuse resulting in disruption and non-life-threatening injuries isn't cutting it. Tear gases are a tool which can prevent attacks that actually threaten the lives of victims, attacks that I might add are not being prevented by the government in many instances. I apologize for my lack of organization / paragraphs but I hardly care anymore.

If you'd replied with respect, I wouldn't have had a problem, but you had to make it personal.  Why?  I don't know.  You say "classic pokoko" but I don't even know who you are.  Don't be an ass and then try to take the high road.  It makes you look fake.  You wanted an argument when you attacked me, don't lie about that.  All you had to do was say you disagree but you decide to go with "pathetic"?  You meant nothing personal by that?  I call bullshit.

If you think directly fatal results are the only form of misuse that matters, so be it.  Nothing I can do about your opinion.  All I was doing from the very start was showing how it could be misused and the probable reasoning behind the ban.  I never even said that I agree with it.  Yet, for some reason, people like want to turn that into a fight rather than a discussion.  You know what that is?  That's pathetic--no insult intended.

Read his first comment.  He went out of his way to be insulting.  Why, I have no idea.  It certainly wasn't needed at that point.  I don't even know the guy.

You don't remember me but I remember you. This behaviour is exactly in line with how you have conducted yourself in the past. You were extremely dismissive and insulting and I am always glad to reciprocate. My only regret is this time I escalated instead of waiting for you to do so first. The thing that bothers me the most is how you play innocent when you are always dismissive and either passive agressive or outright insulting. If you are going to make poorly thought out arguments and do little to back them up, all while calling others naive or saying that their points are nonsense expect to be called out on it, alright. You resorted to saying that I was just using the facts to fit my agenda. Were you seriously proposing that I was pushing an agenda while you were not? How about addressing my points instead of, once again, attacking me personally? This is the crux of my problem with you as a user on this site. Stop dismissing opposing points of view as nonsense and stop calling other users' motivations into quastion, that is very petty of you. Don't bother to try to turn this back on me because I know I conducted myself poorly but that doesn't change the fact that you are a very unpleasant individual to have such discussions with.

As far as your argument that state enforced bans on tear gas are justifiable based upon the potentially fatal risks is both a weak argument and one that you supported very poorly. There are inherent risks involved in any form of self defense and tear gas is no exception. This in no way justifies an authoritarian ban on a legitimate means of self defense. Additionally you could have at least pointed out the fact that tear gas has been linked to fatalities involving individuals who have bronchitis / asthma. Instead you posted a link to an incident at a nightclub where the mace likely contributed not a single fatality because there were several other, far more significant factors involved. You could have at least put the bare minimum amout of effort into supporting your logically unsound argument. When you say that somebody's points are nonsense and that they are just pushing an agenda you're actually surprised when they become combative? Seriously pokoko, having a different viewpoint is fine so long as you stop:

1. doing nothing / very little to support your stance on the issue

2. stop dismissing other viewpoints or insulting other users

3. acting innocent despite being disrecpectful, either as a response to others or without provocation

Hmm.  It looks like you came after me on purpose as some kind of poorly thought about revenge for something I don't even remember.  It all seems very petty and, quite honestly, I would rather not talk with someone who does these kind of planned attacks.  People like you, who bring their own personal vengence motives into discussions, really damage the value of a forum.

Very, very petty.  If you have a personal problem with me then PM me, don't spread this kind of junk into unrelated threads.  This does not belong here.  Goodbye.

So you're not going to address your illogical argument, that you didn't back it up with any facts or the article that in no way supported what you were saying? You're not going to address how you dismissed other users' points of view, how you used ad hominem to discredit those you disagreed with or your own insulting, passive aggressive approach to debate? Go ahead and ignore my valid criticisms of your argument and your conduct, it merely reaffirms what I have said. If you need to convince yourself that you're somehow innocent that's fine, just don't continue with such lousy and ignorant posting because I'll keep pointing out your shortcomings. It's not personal, I just don't like poorly thought out, poorly supported arguments coming from dismissive, passive aggressive users regardless of who it is. I merely remembered that you are a prime example of this type of problematic individual and I pointed out the fact that you had not reformed your ways. Go ahead and brush this off, just don't immediately return to posting articles that do nothing to back your claims while calling out others for posting nonsense just to fit their agendas.

Edit: If I have a problem with how you conduct yourself publicly I'm going to say so in the public discussion. I see no need to send you a private message when I can confront your misconduct where it occurs.