Slashdot Mirror
Chicago Debates Merits of ShotSpotter Technology
theodp writes "After a week that saw more than 40 people shot and at least 4 killed, Chicago politicians and police are at odds on whether to implement ShotSpotter, a camera and acoustic sensor-based gunshot-location system that is designed to pinpoint a shooter's location within seconds. The Chicago Police Department opposes such a move, saying ShotSpotter wasn't reliable in an earlier trial and — at $250,000 for a square mile of coverage — is too expensive. The company says the system has dramatically lowered crime rates in cities across the country. ShotSpotter is currently deployed in two countries and 51 US cities and counties."
Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.
...and with it shall go the supposed evidence. The paltry statistic of 244 gunshots in a two month period vs. 177 in another does not indicate anything about supposed trends in gun crime. Furthermore, yearly gun crime is what is of importance, not a few weeks.
Or we could have reasonable gun control laws.
Guns are already illegal within the Chicago city limits. Guess those "reasonable gun control laws" aren't quite working out like you'd hoped, huh?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Anything that increases compound bow or crossbow homicides can't be bad.
I don't think they should have cameras, but the technology is sound- and it certainly is better use of tax money than where most money is going (all sorts of anti-terrorism crap.) The question: why is such a simple technology so hideously expensive? There should be little patentable in the field, given how old and obvious sonic triangulation is. The equipment is super simple- an embedded computer in an outdoor enclosure with a microphone...
Please help metamoderate.
Charge $300,000 per sq mile and kick $50k back to the police department for 'overtime related to training and special classes.' Don't monitor if the classes are performed or even necessary. Don't check if the system is used after implementation.
The police get funding - they win. The company gets cash - they win. The politicians get to look like they're doing something using cutting edge technology against crime which they can feature in their next election - they win.
It's the perfect solution! No one who matters (in the mind of our leaders) gets hurt.
Better yet, get law abiding citizens to carry flame throwers or hand-grenades. Criminals wouldn't stand a chance.
It works great, or so I'm told. They're able to get cops to where the shooter fired within minutes- and in plenty of time to round up witnesses who swear they "saw nuttin".
There's been at least one drive by in my 'work' neighborhood, and about a dozen+ deaths within a mile. Two bullets in our building. One in the front door within 5 minutes of me entering it (now THAT will freak you out- come into work, forget something, go back to the car and the door has been shot).
Last time I heard of this technology, it worked great in open areas. But if it was deployed in a place with many hard surfaces, like the average city, it became confused by all the echoes and didn't do so well.
Bats don't have any problem with cave interiors, so it would seem locating gunshots despite the hard surfaces should be possible, maybe even easier with all the echoes. Maybe they've solved this by now?
There any independent lab or testing organization that can say? Or any other organization that's tried it and can report on their experiences? The military is very interested in this, and are the ones that paid for the much of the early work. I'm supposing the military's opinion would count highly with the police.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Kind of meaningless without national controls, it's not like this can be controlled at the city limits in the way a national border is maintained (and even that isn't entirely successful).
Plus even with national controls you would need decades of strict enforcement to see a difference.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.
Police aren't unbiased either. If a tool (or effective policing) pushes crime out of an area, you don't need as many police officers in that area, do you? And if it works in one part of the city, it'll probably work in others. That means layoffs. Let me know when you hit that stage of your life where you realize that the police have little incentive to effectively enforce the law.
Sorta similar to firefighters. Fire calls have dropped in the last 20-30 years to 1/4 of what they used to be; more sprinkler systems, better building and electrical codes, etc. We just don't need nearly as many firefighters these days. So rather than lay off firefighters (or reassign them to work in small rescue crews, or in ambulances as rescue techs) the city of Boston now sends out in many cases TWO fire trucks to any medical or vehicle crash call, putting unnecessary miles on expensive heavy equipment and running up fuel bills.
But, they get to look busy...
Please help metamoderate.
Let's see... $250 grand per square mile. What's it cost to obtain a silencer from the friendly neighborhood gun dealer?
After a dozen or so people get caught with this technology, I give it about a year before all the gangs in chicago start using silencers as standard equipment.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Not quite...
In Illinois, if you even want to TOUCH a gun, you need a FOID card (firearms owner ID).
In Chicago, all firearms must be registered, and no handguns can be registered after some date in 1982-ish (basically, you can have a shotgun or rifle, but can't own a pistol).
Open and concealed cary are basically banned in IL, unless you are retired police (in other words, Drew Peterson could conceal carry, but R. Lee Ermey couldn't).
All these restrictions are unconstitutional. Period.
I _DARE_ mayor Daley to produce copies of the perpetrators' FOID cards, and the registration of their firearms.
What's that? They don't have one?
Well, I for one am SHOCKED that someone who would shoot at another human being just because they felt like it, wouldn't at least make sure they could legally do so.
(Heavy sarcasm there).
As for the shotspotter system, I remember seeing examples of this about 12-15 years ago; it was highly touted for a bit, then kinda dissappeared...
It was combined with all the police cameras that were going up back then (just in bad neighborhoods, we swear... sorry, but now EVERY neighborhood is a bad one, so we need cameras everywhere).
The last part is not an exaggeration... next time you go through Chicago, look for little blue blinking LEDs on the lampposts... then ask yourself who won the cold war.
you link to a lie, propaganda by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs that has been debunked. Only 17% of Mexican guns confiscated were traceable at all, the others were from non-US foreign countries and without means of tracing. But you believe the anti-guns lies of a U.S. agency because it suits your anti-gun bias.
The high murder rates in the U.S.A. occur in areas with subcultures that have breakdown of family structure. No father to raise and keep young males in line means a sufficient number of them act as savages to turn a neighborhood into a lawless war zone.
That has nothing to do with gun ownership by normal law-abiding citizens, you rabid anti-gun nuts need to stop implying I or people like me will act as lawless savages with our guns because other groups of people have not the maturity or respect for human life to be trusted with the means to defend themselves.
"Meanwhile, France and the UK and most of continental Europe do enforce gun control laws"
And meanwhile you *still* get situations like biker gangs in Denmark going at each other with shoulder fired AT4-HEAT antitank grenades.
Contrast and compare to Switzerland - an entire country that is armed to the teeth in every house across the land, and there isn't mayhem.
Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stem violence, a fact that anti-gun people tend to ignore.
--
BMO
not amazing at good, huge difference between decent law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, and evil lawless savages banding together in gangs who have no regard for human life or for morality. Already a proven fact that lawful concealed carry reduces crime rate.
You're missing the point.
Gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from carrying guns, but they do stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns.
If I'm just a regular guy who wants to carry a gun for defense purposes, I'm not going to do it if it's illegal.
If I'm planning to commit a felony with a gun, do I really care if having the gun itself is illegal?
The idea of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals entirely is laughable.
Handguns use 100 year old technology. Criminals want guns. It would be just as effective as prohibition:
Someone will set up a shop in their basement and start cranking out illegal guns at $1000 each for a massive profit.
That's if people don't take the easy route and smuggle them across the border.
And this doesn't even get into the humans rights side of gun ownership, or the fact that it is guaranteed in our constitution and very much a part of our national philosophy.
Life is too short to proofread.
The logistics of supplying troops in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Somalia are what caused their defeat. There are hundreds of military and national guard installations, a huge reserve of oil, and years worth of supplies located on a national network of well-maintained roads and bridges, railways, and thousands of airports.
Curious to note that Switzerland, with high gun ownership levels, is a very low-crime zone. The UK, by contrast, is the most violent country in Europe.
The swiss are trained in a national guard and allowed to keep their semi-automatic weapon. In America there is no prerequisite to gun ownership. Here are the Swedish requirements via Wikipedia:
To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.
To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser...
Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessoires such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the possession of a specific gun locker. ...Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book.
Curious that you don't know the difference between "reasonable gun controls" and "let's have unregulated gun bazaars, give every idiot with $1000 a semi-automatic assault rifle, and see what happens."
Contrast and compare to Switzerland
That's because they're properly trained to use the guns while they do national service. You can hardly compare mass ex-military gun control to what we have where they're nothing more than penis extensions for morons and cowards.
my wife and her cousin were mugged in full view of police camera on Argyle street ("vietnamese town"), and the images from the camera on telephone pole were utterly useless. couldn't see under hat brim to see face, the perps know they can just keep their chin slightly down with a cap and they can rob, rape, and murder in camera shot. the percentage of crimes solved using those camera pictures is in the realm of statistical noise.
Good decent people own guns in illinois and have their FOID card, but they aren't the ones doing drive by shooting or holding up liquor stores or banks. But that idiot hypocrite Mayor Daley, who relies on armed people for protection, says gun ownership by good decent law-abiding people (the ones who don't have guns in chicago right now) having the means to defend themselves would mean an explosion of crime. what a moron, both my brothers live in states that allow concealed carry, and in both their cities of residence the crime rate has plummeted.
People killing people is a separate problem from firearms ubiquity. It is easy to legally purchase and carry a weapon in both Isreal and Switzerland, yet they don't have high gun crime rates. Every large survey of gun crime rates and gun control laws show very low correlation between the two.
No. That is a gross oversimplification. The point is that handguns are illegal in Chicago, yet last week there were 40 shootings. Let me repeat that. Last week there were 40 shootings in Chicago despite the fact that handguns are illegal in Chicago. This seems to me to be a good indication that gun control laws like those that Chicago has do not work. It's all very nice to say that gee, if we just outlawed guns then nobody would have them and no one would get shot, but last I checked, we don't live in a world populated with unicorns and faeries.
You'd think that Chicago, of all places, would understand the implications of prohibition. When alcohol was illegal it still flowed underground. Why would the politicians expect that making guns illegal would make the m go away? In fact, from where I sit it has made the situation worse, because the law abiding citizen, following the law, has no gun, but the criminal, not giving a fuck about the law, does.
Anecdotally, I live in a small town (approx' 20K people) in Arizona. More than half the population here has a handgun (I have 2), closer to 75% if you add rifles and shotguns. In the last 2 years there has been 2 murders, only one with a gun, and that involved a gang that chased someone and happened to catch up with them in our town.
As I said, this is anecdotal, but in my personal current experience, a high proportion of gun ownership does not lead to more shootings. In fact, it seems to me that more guns, at least here, leads to lower crime overall, which suggests to me that socio-economic and cultural issues are the actual problem and not the presence of "too many guns"
My overall point is that the gun issue is not as simple as a lot of gun control advocates would like to make them, and that in a city with strict gun control laws large numbers of shootings occur. In Chicago, with strict gun laws, the murder rate is 18 per 100,000 residents. In Phoenix, the murder rate is 10.5 per 100,000 residents, yet Chicago has a strict no-handgun law, and in Phoenix you can buy and carry a handgun with no permit. Since the murder rate in Chicago is 75% higher than Phoenix, I'd say that the laws in Chicago weren't working so good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
"with the response time and technology of the police nowadays that section of your constitution doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me"
WTF are you babbling about? Been watching too many cop shows methinks. :)
Unless you live next door to a police station, response time is still "reaction time", not "intervention/interdiction/prevention".
That means the cops show up to scrape your dead arse off the pavement if you lost the fight.
In my case, I lived far enough out that the cops couldn't find my house for more than a half-hour. The white trash crackheads partying on my perimeter road told my wife (I was deployed at the time) to piss off when she asked them to leave. That they didn't do more is likely because she was carrying a 5.56 Ruger Mini-14. She returned to the house, put a few rounds into the ground (NOT horizontally, no one was in danger) where they couldn't see the impact area but we could dig up the bullets if required), and they left rapidly never to return.
The sheriff was pleased, our neighbors ditto, and we got no more visitors. Beats going home to a fucked/dead wife and a looted house in my book.
BTW, the US can't be peaceful because it is too culturally and economically diverse. American subgroups have nothing in common, so the only way to keep society reasonably peaceful is to contain the most violent by force. Even the Coalition allows Iraqi heads of household to have one full-auto battle rifle because it is necessary in order to avoid being a victim.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Either Ann Rand, L. Ron Hubbard or Steve Jobs. Those are our favorites.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Fifth Ward Ald. Leslie Hairston wants Chicago to reintroduce the Shotspotter gunshot location technology. After all, Shotspotter's web site says it can reduce crime. So why isn't the CPD using it? Don't they care?
The CPD did adopt Shotspotter and found mixed results in Chicago. Specifically:
The city is going forward with installing the technology in the Loop. However, Shotspotter is an expensive technology and the CPD decided it wasn't the best use of their scare resources. The city of Chicago is approximately 227 square miles, so to cover the entire city would cost close to $50 million.
The Shotspotter technology locates gunshots. In a dense city, 911 calls often serve the same function. Gunshot location is a useful piece of information for police officers, but it is not a silver bullet. It cannot by itself reduce crime. If the system is reliable and works well with officers, it could lead to less shootings (but not necessarily less crime). The independent studies I have seen show the results are quite mixed.
In Chicago, there has been a rash of shootings in Chicago were no regard for the police or cameras. Shotspotter is now the silver bullet. I am concerned that Shotspotter is seen as the answer because people are scared. It doesn't make sense to spend money on technology that makes us feel better, but is ineffective. The city can address this by making public its tests of Shotspotter. I would like more details about the tests, for example: How many gunshots were there during the tests? How accurate was the system?
Link
Read my other post on the very real, and very strict guns laws in Switzerland.
Denmark's homicide rate is per 100,000 per year is .88
The US homicide rate is 5.4
Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stem violence, a fact that anti-gun people tend to ignore.
You're quite simply full of shit.
Unfortunately for you, crime statistics here in the U.S. disagree with you. Just because something works in your country does NOT mean that it will work by default in our country.
Here in America, the right to own and bear arms is very much a deeply rooted ideal that stems from the founding of this country. It is statistically proven over and over that here in America, states and cities that allow their law abiding citizens to carry firearms have much lower crime rates than in states or cities that restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
As I have said in previous comments, before 2005 Washington D.C. had a general gun ban. No one in the city limits was allowed any firearms at all. D.C. had some of the highest crime rates in the country.
When the Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional in 2005 and lifted the ban, violent crime rates plummeted, dropping 25% within the first year and continued to decline after.
Prior to 2005, D.C. had extremely high crime rates. After 2005, D.C. is no longer in the top 10 list of highest crime rated cities in the U.S. In reality, it's not even one of the top 25 of most violent places to live. The only thing that change... the gun ban was lifted.
In the U.S. more legally owned guns means less crime. Our statistics prove that over and over again.
I also reference a town called Kennesaw in Georgia. This town actually REQUIRES that all home owners maintain atleast one firearm WITH ammunition. This was passed in 1982 and to this day, the town sees some of the lowest crime rates in the country. In the first year the law being passed, crime fell 75%.
Here is the link where you can read about it:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738709/firearm_ownership_is_mandatory_for.html?cat=17
Guns are necessary to a free and safer America, and are an essential liberty that needs to be maintained.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
The Swiss have been armed to the teeth for hundreds of years.
They have a peaceful society, prosperity, and hot babes. The Swiss experience is THE argument for the classical definition of "militia" as used by the US Founders. Their government dare not become oppressive given a completely armed citizenry. Their traditions and cultural uniformity have combined with this to produce an excellent place to live.
Whatever one thinks of Israel, they are ready to react on-the-spot to attacks and often do. Given that perpetual war (low intensity interrupted by bouts of high intensity combat) is the only way for Israel not to be destroyed, they are as ready as they can be.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Here in America, the right to own and bear arms is very much a deeply rooted ideal that stems from the founding of this country. It is statistically proven over and over that here in America, states and cities that allow their law abiding citizens to carry firearms have much lower crime rates than in states or cities that restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
I live in Atlanta, Georgia. I'm quite familiar with the standard issue backwater responses to gun control. Canada has even more guns per capita and less homicide rate due to their strict enforcement of gun laws. Same goes for most of Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Local gun control policies don't work because they are local. It's like having a dry county. People are still going to drive a few miles and get liquor.
Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, and the most modern gun technology during his day allowed a person to fire a round every twenty seconds. He had some good things to say, but treating the founding fathers with any sort of reverence would be something they abhorred, since most of them believed that dogmas are evil and that reason was the path to enlightenment.
East Palo Alto was the first city to have complete coverage. They say it has helped reduce shootings.
Shootings are way down in East Palo Alto, which used to be "Murder City, USA". But not because they have a ShotSpotter system. The highest crime area, Whiskey Gulch, was where the liquor stores were concentrated. It's the only place I've ever seen a fully bulletproofed fried chicken outlet, with food delivered through an armored turntable.
That entire area was "redeveloped" around 2000. It was levelled, and replaced with a Four Seasons Hotel and an office building full of lawyers. The area nearby, across the freeway, with a low-end motel and some housing, was also levelled and replaced by a large mall and an Ikea store.
Then real estate prices in the area went up, many of the poor people were forced out, and the crime rate went down.
Motive, means, opportunity... All are required for murder. Guns are one mechanism for providing the means. Even if you could take away all guns, there are still other means available for humans to kill.
What is the motivation for 40 attempted murders in one week in the city? Is anyone looking into that?
Anyone who is somewhat important in a gang would be wise to get all the kids in the neighborhood to damage the acoustic sensors. If this was impossible, another smart move would be to start shooting A LOT. Not at anything in particular-- just grab a pistol, put it in a bag, and fire. Get out of the area quickly (ditch the gun if necessary) and waste police resources tremendously. I'm betting that after thousands of rounds being pumped into the ground the police will stop responding.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
All these restrictions are unconstitutional. Period.
Please go find another soap box. Gun restriction laws have been tried over and over, and they are quite legal by the constitution. Thank goodness.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Contrast and compare to Switzerland
That's because they're properly trained to use the guns while they do national service. You can hardly compare mass ex-military gun control to what we have where they're nothing more than penis extensions for morons and cowards.
Bah.
Like most people who hold "training" in such high regard and believe that it's the difference between someone who can be trusted with a dangerous weapon and someone who cannot, I'm sure you've never had any.
Training teaches some useful things, certainly. One very important thing that it teaches is how to safely handle a weapon. But that portion of the training only takes about 30 minutes (though many hours of practice help to ingrain the safe-handling habits). Beyond that, all of the training that soldiers and police receive with their firearms is primarily about marksmanship and tactics. The difference between cover and concealment and how to make use of them. Shooting accurately from cover, with either hand. Shooting accurately while moving. Tactics for building clearing. Tactics for assaulting various sorts of prepared positions. That sort of thing. Police also spend a lot of time on the legalities of shooting, on defending their firearms from gun-grab attempts, etc.
With that understood, can you tell me, please, just what aspect of all of that training it is that makes the difference between a person who can store a fully-automatic main battle rifle in their closet for decades and never harm a soul and someone who likes to wave his pistol around and cap anyone who offends him?
I'll answer my own question: NOTHING. The difference between those two is their social responsibility and emotional stability, not their training. Criminals rarely shoot people accidentally -- they shoot people because they want to, because it gives them power over people. It especially gives them power over unarmed people.
Firearms training doesn't change what you do with a gun, it just changes how effectively you do it. The fact that all those Swiss gun owners have been trained is not what keeps them from shooting up their neighborhoods.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.