That whole "less-lethal" (than what?), tasers vs. guns, ~100-to-1 use ratio issue

Ref.: Tasers a controversial tool for police departments [LINK]

Tasers are marketed as "less-lethal", raising the obvious question, less-lethal than what?

The obvious answer is: less-lethal than guns. So replacing gunfire with a taser deployment is nothing but pure good, right? Yes of course, but too bad that tasers replacing guns is such a rare event.

[There's also the issue that tasers are actually "less-than-or-equal-to-lethal".]

Fontana police Sgt. Doug Wagner says... "A Taser is used probably 100 (times) to one," (compared to guns and bullets). Since the beginning of this year, Wagner said he believes there has been one officer-involved shooting compared to 30 to 40 deployed Tasers, a number based on empty cartridges.

Anyone following this blog will realize that I have repeatedly pointed out this approximate 100-to-1 use ratio (tasers/guns) many times over the past couple of years. But this is the first time that I've seen it independently confirmed as a good approximate ratio.

The point is that it's not reasonable to use the argument that tasers are safer than guns, while at the same time standing by and allowing tasers to be used about one hundred times as often, and most often in situations where gun fire would never be acceptable.

Even if it is obvious that tasers are less-lethal than guns, that still leaves the other 99% of the entire taser debate unresolved.

It's a duh-obvious point that should be instinctive to anyone, but it's still a leap of logic that many miss.