ShotSpotter does not reduce gun violence or increase clearance rates

Related: <i>ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighbourhood</i> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;computer.rip&#x2F;2024-03-01-listening-in-on-the-neighborhood.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;computer.rip&#x2F;2024-03-01-listening-in-on-the-neighbor...</a> (3 months ago, 523 points, 399 comments: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39576974">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39576974</a>)

A lot of problems can only be solved by a combination of solutions A and B. If A and B have never existed together, it&#x27;s trivial to write research papers &quot;proving&quot; that A and B are ineffective. Of course they are.

ShotSpotter seemed (in Chicago, at least) to be a huge source of graft. Before word got out of the cancellation there were some nodes installed in the more right wing or blighted wards last minute. Scope is really important when people sign a contract. All ShotSpotter did was generate overtime hours for CPD without having any noticeable effect to crime. The amount of money ShotSpotter gives to Ald. Napolitano or the media to stoke anxiety about the city saving on SaaS bills is insane…

This is not because of the technology but because of broken governance.<p>When someone is shooting other people, that person must be removed from society if that society is to remain functional.<p>The fact is that American cities simply do not do this. Japan does it. Singapore does it. And if the US incarcerated every person who fired a bullet at a person for the remainder of their natural lifespan, we could do it too.

Well... if you don&#x27;t use the data from shot spotter in an actionable way and the mal-incentives for murder &#x2F; illicit firearm possession don&#x27;t change... yeah a tool meant to observe and record instances of gun violence probably won&#x27;t prevent it.<p>This isn&#x27;t about politics it&#x27;s about understanding what a functioning society looks like.

It does a great job picking up voices though

It&#x27;s incredible how technosolutionism keeps coming back in Law Enforcement in either a reliance on the Chilling Effect or as a &#x27;new&#x27; way of Predictive Policing, while they never work

Cool tech in theory. I didn&#x27;t read how the study was conducted but I&#x27;ll assume the results are correct. The note on the time to reporting makes me wonder about victim survival likelihood. I didn&#x27;t see that in there, but I assume that 93 seconds could be the difference for someone who was shot.<p>I don&#x27;t understand how police could show up later. This technology doesn&#x27;t replace humans calling, right? I didn&#x27;t have time to check out that other report, it&#x27;s very long.