Studies not asking the right questions...

We're getting swamped with little tiny 'studies' of this city or that city. They're rubbish.

Look - if anyone wants to conduct a study then conduct one of the following studies:

1) How does the real-world M26 death rate compare to the real-world X26 death rate? Also, previous lower power tasers? Does the lethality correlate to the model?

2) How does the real-world death rate compare to darts hitting chest or not? Does the death rate correlate to where the current vector runs? We know that the back is very safe (all those FAKE training shots, almost always in to the back). But why do I keep seeing the word "chest" in many of the lethal incidents being reported?

Until this real-world data is provided, then all these made-to-order studies of selected data sets are not to be considered useful.

And someone should answer why the data to answer these obvious questions isn't readily available? Why does the RCMP's data exclude the type of taser used?

Why hasn't anyone looked at the autopsy reports to see the rate of taser darts on chest (for those that died), and compare it the overall rate of taser use.

It is blatantly obvious that these are the questions to ask.

"Studies" be damned.