Setting the goal post: a 95% reduction

As has been already proven ([LINK], [LINK], and many more), tasers are used about 100 times as often as guns ever were.

What this means is that if the taser is going to go back to its original justification as 'a replacement for the gun', or 'a less-than-lethal alternative' (keyword 'alternative'), or "saving lives everyday" [sic(k)], then we need to see a 99% reduction in the number of times that the taser is being deployed in Canada.

That sort of reduction is extremely unlikely. Which makes the original justification for the taser's introduction to Canada into a damn lie.

And even if we allow the taser to be justifiably deployed in situations where gun-fire has traditionally not been employed, even by a generosity-allowance of 'several' times (for example: accepting a very generous usage rate of five times more than guns), then we are still looking for a 95% reduction!!!!

A 20-to-1 reduction, even if we're generous!!!!

I don't believe that this has sunk into the skulls of those that will have to make this happen.

• The taser-use policy is all wrong.
• All the training is wrong.
• All the trainers are wrong.
• The 'qualifications' from Taser are a sign of brainwashing.
• Procedures need to be put in place for medical attention.
• Disciplinary policies need to be put in place.
  

A 95% reduction!!!!
That's a 20-to-1 reduction!!!!
And we're being generous (allowing 5:1).

And the approach so far has been to more-or-less, agree-in-principle, maybe. Even Kennedy's initial report was not fully adopted.

THIS IS NOT OVER.

What stage have we reached in this process?

Well, we have paper and we have talk .

So we're right about at this stage:
[LINK] (PS: the Nazi reference is incidental.)