Slashdot Mirror
90 Cities Install A Covert Technology That Listens For Gunshots (businessinsider.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Business Insider:
In more than 90 cities across the US, including New York, microphones placed strategically around high-crime areas pick up the sounds of gunfire and alert police to the shooting's location via dots on a city map... ShotSpotter also sends alerts to apps on cops' phones. "We've gone to the dot and found the casings 11 feet from where the dot was, according to the GPS coordinates," Capt. David Salazar of the Milwaukee Police Dept. told Business Insider. "So it's incredibly helpful. We've saved a lot of people's lives."
When three microphones pick up a gunshot, ShotSpotter figures out where the sound comes from. Human analysts in the Newark, California, headquarters confirm the noise came from a gun (not a firecracker or some other source). The police can then locate the gunshot on a map and investigate the scene. The whole process happens "much faster" than dialing 911, Salazar said, though he wouldn't disclose the exact time.
The company's CEO argues their technology deters crime by demonstrating to bad neighborhoods that police will respond quickly to gunshots. (Although last year Forbes discovered that in 30% to 70% of cases, "police found no evidence of a gunshot when they arrived.") And in a neighborhood where ShotSpotter is installed, one 60-year-old man is already complaining, "I don't like Big Brother being in all my business."
When three microphones pick up a gunshot, ShotSpotter figures out where the sound comes from. Human analysts in the Newark, California, headquarters confirm the noise came from a gun (not a firecracker or some other source). The police can then locate the gunshot on a map and investigate the scene. The whole process happens "much faster" than dialing 911, Salazar said, though he wouldn't disclose the exact time.
The company's CEO argues their technology deters crime by demonstrating to bad neighborhoods that police will respond quickly to gunshots. (Although last year Forbes discovered that in 30% to 70% of cases, "police found no evidence of a gunshot when they arrived.") And in a neighborhood where ShotSpotter is installed, one 60-year-old man is already complaining, "I don't like Big Brother being in all my business."
"SWAT team dispatched at every construction site in the city"... Why ? One of the way to tie a sill plate to concrete is to use a powder-actuated nailer.
If you know which areas are high crime areas, why not locate the police precinct there?
I'm not sure fan of big brother, but it's illegal to fire guns within most city limits and anyone doing so I doing something that needs police attention. This is one form of surveillance that seems unobtrusive and doesn't violate any form of privacy. That said, if they start listening with better microphones and storing data, that's a whole other ballgame.
ShotSpotter has had this for over 20 years in cities. In some tinfoil hat just learning about it?
San Francisco Bay Area police departments have been using this technology for years.
ShotSpotter has been used for several years in six Bay Area cities. Police say ShotSpotter has helped them respond more quickly to crime scenes and capture suspects, and provide court evidence to solve homicide cases. Oakland police started using the gunshot detection technology in 2006; it now covers 80 percent of the city, said Capt. Ersie Joyner.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/11/11/shotspotter-has-long-history-with-bay-area-police/
Take a brown paper bag, the tall ones you get at liquor stores, blow em up as much as you can, then pop - in the right conditions, in a city, sounds like a fucking gunshot going off.
Says someone with no clue what a real gunshot sounds like.
http://gunfreezone.net/index.p...
Passionately Indifferent
Is it really a covert technology when it's publicized? I've heard about these installations for years. Even the Summary talks about an article last year in Forbes.
This isn't secret surveillance, it's highly targeted mass surveillance--it only triggers on a very particular thing that involves a high degree of risk to the public. Save your big brother complaints for things like actual internet surveillance, overreaching electronic searches, or better yet for things like reform around the existing big-brother-esque things that cause massive damage to the economy every day. (E.g. bad uses of criminal records or credit reports)
Real lawyers write in C++
Ooooo! "Covert"!!! Big Brother Bad!
My guess is it's not "covert" if you follow city politics and the city council approval at public meetings necessary to buy and install this technology.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Right. Because drugged up loons always hit with the first shot, and one person shooting doesn't cause others to join in.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
is making sure the crime doesn't spill over from the poor neighborhoods to the rich ones. Crime 'fighting' is about containment. If you're old enough to remember the Rodney King riots you might also remember people asking why they just destroyed their own neighborhoods. The reason was the neighborhoods were surrounded by swat teams. The teams didn't move in and quell the riots, they just kept 'em in.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
When the City of Pittsfield installed these the amount of gun shootings went down noticibly. My neighborhood is quiet now. I am now very much pro ShotSpotter.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
I've always liked the idea of sensors over a city to detect gunshots, but police still take some time to arrive to see what is going on.
I think a big improvement on this would be a fleet of camera drones around the city that could be launched as soon as a gunshot was heard, so you could have a view of the scene in under 30 seconds anywhere in a city...
It would also be really helpful for 911 calls so police could get a video of what was happening at the scene of a call even as they were en-route.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As a gun lover, and privacy lover I can't see how this is a bad thing. Cities have gun regulations making it illegal to fire a firearm. If it is a justified self-defence act the person being attacked would like the police to come anyway. If it's an illegal firing then we want the police to respond.
Make it so it's not possible to be used for any other use than dispatching armed officers/first responders even with a warrant or national security issue though without being put forward as vote by all of the voters. It's reasonable to allow surveillance uses of automated technology as long as the public interest and their privacy is protected.
Sure, with that iPhone you've got that can reproduce a 160db gunshot with adequate fidelity ....
This tech does more harm than good when dealing with professional killers (governments). This type of audio triangulation is easily defeated, primarily because of how weak the signal detected is (audio, even from a 170 dBm source, is very low energy 1km away). With a single phase array emitter directed at the detectors, you can simulate a gunshot anywhere you want with less than 1 watt output. Such devices have already been built (by both Israel and Germany) to defeat this technology, which has been deployed near battlefields for a lot longer than in cities.
-- sometimes AND gates turn me on.
+5
Not all incidents involve a single shot being fired, or all shots being fired in extremely quick succession.
Not all victims die instantly as a result of being shot.
Not all incidents result in someone being shot, but where the shooter is still a danger.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I used to live in Maryvale, a suburb of Phoenix AZ
The gunfire was getting ridiculous in the late 1990's, with bullets coming through my front window, teenagers shot in front of my house and 'celebratory' gunfire that included people emptying 30 round clips from AKs and AR-15s
The city installed a shot location system and the state passed 'Shannon's Law' that made it a felony to discharge your weapon into the air in a city
It did not help the drive-by situation directly, but it cut down on the overall amount of gunfire
It's a waste of money and only useful for catching the absolute dumbest of criminals... the rest will find ways around it, from using decoys and distractions(folks shooting off guns through a hole in the floor of their car or dropping large firecrackers for example...) to silencers, smart criminals can easily evade such a system... of course the police and the companies that made the systems won't tell you that because they love wasting your tax dollars and are scared to admit that the only real solution is to give up on the worthless expensive war on drugs and the fight for more gun control and instead focus on drug treatment and making it easier to good law abiding citizens to adequately arm themselves for protection.
It's in the fucking press, why on earth is this 'covert'?
"(Although last year Forbes discovered that in 30% to 70% of cases, "police found no evidence of a gunshot when they arrived.")"
The word you're looking for is a 'revolver' or a guy who isn't too lazy to pick up his casings.
When your dog shits on the living room carpet, you let him know that was a BAD thing.
Electing Trump was the same as shitting on the country's living room carpet and the only way to get voters to avoid doing that again is to remind them until the behavior changes
Criminals or not it has cut down dramatically on the gunfire in the city
Maybe you are not just trolling and would participate in a thought experiment
1. If a city has a high degree of 'celebratory' gun fire, would that provide cover for people using guns to commit crimes?
2. Then would developing a method to reduce non-criminal discharges of weapons make the criminals using weapons more obvious?
3. Once that the criminals are the only ones firing weapons in the city, would it become easier to locate and respond, resulting in less criminal activity (at least using guns in public)?
This has been the case in metro Phoenix, as usual reality trumps nra fear-mongering
Perhaps not, but enforcement gives dignity to the law. People begin to respect the law when it is consistently and quickly enforced.
Keep in mind, a .22 isn't all that loud.
Smart criminals do, at least insofar as it doesn't curtail their criminal enterprise. If you're an intelligent criminal and making good money, you'll avoid drawing police attention to yourself as much as possible. Stupid criminals won't, which just makes them easier to catch.
Yeah, I've never understood the "laws are useless because criminals break laws" approach. You hear it a lot in the Second Amendment community.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If the only places that these devices are placed are in "Bad Neighborhoods", then the Police State is demonstrably racist.
Wouldn't it be racist to assume 'bad neighborhoods' had a racial identity or connotation?
When you don't have a legitimate argument, the key is to raise your hackles, stomp your feet, and scream at the top of your lungs.
That's their modus operandi. This is also why they can be flying a Confederate Flag and shouting their love for country. In Minnesota and Iowa.
Not really. Unless you really have a barrel length of zero and a round of zero mass, there will be a sonic boom from the bullet for at least a little while. A microphone staged downrange will pick up two cracks: one from the sonic boom of the bullet and a second one from the charge exploding. The bullet is supersonic, so the sound from it originates closer to the microphone, whereas the gun is stationary and its sound will arrive later. The reverse is true if the microphone is behind the gun, and there's an area of ambiguity if you're perpendicular to the muzzle on either side, which is why multiple microphones.
Firecrackers, nail guns, and anything else that doesn't send a supersonic projectile doesn't have that double crack. It's not hard to tell by ear in many cases and certainly not too hard to automate classification to some acceptable level of false alarm rates.
As a gun lover, and privacy lover I can't see how this is a bad thing.
The bad thing about it is that it is basically an admission of defeat in preventing people from shooting at each other in the first place. It solves the wrong problem. The problem that needs to be solved is how do we prevent the violence before it occurs rather than how do we catch offenders more quickly after the fact. Something like this makes sense in a war zone but if you need to install it during what is ostensibly peacetime then something is terribly wrong with public policy. Peaceful cities don't get that way because of a rapid response police force. They get that way because of good public policy and economic opportunity.
I'm not saying technology like this is a bad idea in a violent locale. Being able to quickly identify, localize, and respond to violent acts is a worthy goal as a general proposition and if the problem already exists you have to deal with it. I'm just saying that there about a thousand other more productive ways to work this problem. Technology like this should be a last resort, not standard procedure.
If it is a justified self-defence act the person being attacked would like the police to come anyway. If it's an illegal firing then we want the police to respond.
While true, it's important to remember that few gunshots actually come from justifiable acts of self defense. The vast majority of shots fired aimed at humans are either attempts at murder or suicide. This is the flaw in this as a matter of public policy. It's like installing smoke detectors instead of ensuring the wiring in your home is safe and proper. While better than nothing it's not really the best approach to solving the problem.
It's reasonable to allow surveillance uses of automated technology as long as the public interest and their privacy is protected.
Agreed. The concerning bit is that people routinely disagree on what constitutes "the public interest" and the importance of privacy. People who are scared tend to have a rather different view of those ideas than those who aren't.
Damn. That's why the Republicans passed that law allowing silencers. Because of the listening ears. I knew there had to be a better reason than simply being an NRA recruiting tactic.
Make up your mind: is it a waste of money or is it useful?
I think most of the time it will be a waste of money. Reason being that it solves the wrong problem. What we should actually want is not a police force that response quicker but public policy that makes it so police response isn't necessary in the first place. Peaceful cities don't get that way by having a hyper-vigilant police force that can respond instantly - if anything that tends to make things worse in most cases. No, cities become peaceful through good public policy and economic opportunity. The details can vary by location but if you need technology like this it's a CLEAR indication that public policy is in bad shape.
Protip: If you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about being """overpoliced""" (That is, you don't have to worry about being a criminal if you are not a criminal). It's that simple.
No it is not that simple. Every single black man I know has had the lovely experience of being harassed by police for driving while black. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. They were not breaking any laws or causing any problems when it happened. Just because you haven't broken any law does not even begin to mean that you do not have to worry about being over policed.
Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean you have nothing to fear.
(unmarked cars are not about preventing crime, they are for catching people after they break the law).
No, marked cars are for catching people after breaking the law as well as a number of other things. Unmarked cars are for catching people 'as' they are committing a crime. Theoretically, if all cars were marked then a criminal would always know when it was safe to commit a crime.
But marked vs unmarked cars isn't a primary issue or solution. Spending more money doesn't seem to help either, because how that money is used is often limited to inneffective programs (not saying there are no effective ones that could expand). More cops can help, but some places see that as an unwanted intrusion. Programs that isolate young kids from bad influences while providing good influences work the best, but often the bad influences are family and so there is resistance to that type of social program approach. Stop and Frisk saves lives, but cities have determined the intrusion on individual rights is too great to save those lives.
So our hands are tied as we are left with little effective methods to deal with the issues. The politics of division make it that much harder to do anything effective.
Slight nitpick, sub-sonic .22LR rounds are a thing.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yeah, I've never understood the "laws are useless because criminals break laws" approach.
Well, that's you. I've never understood the "solution to every problem is more government" approach you totalitarians love, myself.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Suppressor. They aren't made magically silent.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Shannon's Law was directed specifically at celebratory gunfire, such as firing into the air for New Year. This is a feature of, um, a certain culture. Shannon was a young girl who went outside with her family to see the New Year in and suddenly dropped dead of a round that had been fired miles away.
Calling someone a racist doesn't help anything. I know that's what you guys live your life for, but if you actually wanted to help people you'd stop pointing fingers first, last, and always, and you might actually try to get along with people and help them out.
Most pistols are around 150db or more, much less and I doubt this system would detect it.
Not just a thing: the subsonic .22LR makes up a majority of all firearms cartridges manufactured. If you hear two cracks from one of those, one is an echo.
How many people think it's fun to cause a bunch of armed and anxious police officers to quickly converge on their own location? Seems like a self-correcting problem.
This space intentionally left blank
Even if we completely ignore the idea that further shots can be prevented, arriving quickly at a location where someone has been shot is obviously the best way to save their life. Bullets are not nuclear weapons that vaporize people on impact, about 90% of people who are shot live and we can save more of that last 10% with quicker action.
This space intentionally left blank
There's lots of common handgun ammunition that is subsonic. The .45 Colt and .45 ACP come to mind immediately because I have sidearms chambered for those cartridges. There's also plenty of "specialty" sub-sonic ammunition for other common cartridges like 9mm. There's even subsonic rifle ammunition that is not too hard to find.
I've seen the reasons for these subsonic cartridges to exist in the modern era. First is that they are cheap. It takes less metal and allows for lower tolerances for subsonic ammunition. Second is that there seems to be a lot of people doing cowboy action shooting and other hobbies that like the old style guns. Supersonic ammunition is a fairly recent development, especially for handguns. Third, for a firearm suppressor to work properly subsonic ammunition must be used.
The .45 ACP is apparently quite popular among the special forces types because it can be effectively suppressed. It bothers me when I see people that will make YouTube videos that "show" how ineffective firearm suppressors are by putting one on a gun and fire off supersonic ammunition. I can tell that the ammunition is supersonic by it's distinctive "crack" as it leaves the barrel. Both sides do it too. The "pro-gun" people will want to show that guns can still be detected by things like these shot detectors. The "anti-gun" side do this to show that no one would want them since they don't work, therefore they can be banned, or something.
One thing that I wonder about is the number of false negatives. People talk about the false positives with things like firecrackers or something being detected as a shot but what of a shot that was not detected? Isn't that a thing? I remember reading somewhere of someone that shot another and not waking sleeping children in the next room by wrapping a revolver with a pillow. Had to have been something subsonic like a .45 Colt or .38 Special.
I have to wonder if the criminals will figure this out. Wrapping a revolver in a pillow might be rather conspicuous but there might be other ways to suppress the noise with something to the point it would not be detected by these shot spotters. In the US federal law the possession of a firearm suppressor is tightly controlled. Using a firearm suppressor in the commission of a crime can get a 30 year sentence. I'd think though that in the interest of getting away with murder someone might not be all that concerned about an additional 30 year sentence.
There is a movement in the USA to get firearm suppressors regulated like shotguns (no fees, must be 18 years old, show ID, not have a criminal history, done with 5 minute phone call) instead of like machine guns ($200 tax, fingerprints, extensive background check, 2 years wait for processing, signatures from sheriff, psychiatrist, and your mom, and usually involves a lawyer to get the paperwork in order). This movement is growing because of the obvious hearing protection advantages from suppressors. If that happens then criminals could get them more often by theft, falsifying records, straw purchase, etc.
I'm not a fan of banning suppressors because criminals might use them in a crime. If that were true then we'd be banning a lot of things because criminals use them to harm others. I'm just thinking of how ineffective these shot spotter devices could be in the not too distant future. I think people are relying too much on government and technology to save them from what they fear. That's just not healthy thinking, IMHO.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I've never seen an AK or AR-15 that uses "clips" before. That's new!
That is correct. You can get the faster rounds, they are available. Federal cartons are sub-sonics, for example. The faster will say something like Hi-Speed (which Federal does make, but I think only sells in smaller boxes and not the 500 round cartons).
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Even slighter nitpick. There are quite a few subsonic caliber rounds available, e.g., 9mm, etc.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
"...We've saved a lot of people's lives."
Sure..., after they were shot?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I'm just saying that's not their main purpose; any more than prison's main purpose is to rehabilitate people.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and calling someone a racist aren't even remotely the same thing. If we're going to tackle a problem we have to acknowledge it's existence. You can't really believe Philando Castile was shot just because the cop thought he was reaching for his gun. Hell, the worst thing was the cop probably really thought he was. The cop was more likely to believe a black man would shoot him than hand over his driver's license.
That's institutionalized racism in a nutshell. When you don't even realize you're doing it. When you can say with a straight face "my black friends are fine but..." and mean it. Are law enforcement practices are a huge part of that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's not how silencers work. Also unless they're pointing laser microphones at your window, they aren't invading privacy.
Shoving the guns up the arses of idiots who don't understand that they're not a toy is another solution. Do you have any suggestions what to do with people that fire off firearms in a reckless manner?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That is simply not true. In fact, it is the exact opposite of true. Eighty percent of the mass shootings in the last three decades were committed using legally-purchased weapons.
http://time.com/4367592/orland...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
You are welcome on my lawn.
My understanding is that suppressors are incredibly easy to get in Commonwealth countries (where the guns are harder to obtain).
That is my understanding as well. Not only are they incredibly easy to obtain it is considered "rude" to not have one.
This is the story I was told on the history of the restrictions on firearm suppressors. The laws restricting gun ownership really started in the USA (and in many nations around the world really) in the 1920s and 1930s. World War One had ended and people had access to a lot of surplus weapons. There was a government concern of another public uprising like what happened around the world in the events leading to the war, and the Great Depression was starting. The prohibition on alcohol didn't help as that led to a lot of black market crime.
In the USA a law passed on the restrictions on firearm ownership in 1934. The publicly stated reason for restricting firearm suppressors was to limit poaching. This became a problem as poor people could more easily afford a one time expense of a suppressed rifle in order to turn cheap war surplus ammunition into meat. This had little to do with reality since there was plenty of wildlife then and few law enforcement in large segments of the USA. A more likely situation was to deter assassination of unpopular government officials, and to better find anyone that made such an attempt.
In the UK they had a different problem, rats. People wanted to kill the rats but also not get woken up whenever someone shot a rat in the night. The UK was much more urban than the USA so keeping the guns quiet was of a greater concern. I'm sure that there was a concern of an assassination attempt on government officials but the people that owned guns then tended to be people of the wealthy class, and they were not likely to be a threat.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
In all fairness you can use a stripper clip to load the magazine, but the AK requires a magazine to fire more than one round.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Part and parcel of the GOP strategy is to identify potential opposition leaders and work to discredit them. They have been working on Bill and Hillary for the past 30 years, and they are just getting started on Bernie and his Wife by digging into the finances of a failed school that she was involved in.
If you are going to ignore their strategy then you will always be swayed by it. What are the other options? To either abandon all critical thinking like republican supporters have, or get a new candidate every few years so they cannot spread enough lies about them in the election cycle
A .22 rifle comes in more like 130.
Sure man, and that's why the legislature of Tennessee had a fit over a Muslim foot bath, oh wait, no, it was a mop sink.
It's just a bogeyman, another of the things that riles up the base in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Alabama, and the like, fears of the dreaded "Sharia" law while simultaneously lamenting how they can't do things the "Christian" way, as the Constitution intended.
Well, that's you. I've never understood the "solution to every problem is more government" approach you totalitarians love, myself.
So... no laws, ever? For anyone? At all?
Because the examples the OP listed about Phoenix, AZ sound as reasonable and "minimal government."
when we took action during the civil rights movement. The point is to get folks to take action, particularly at the polls, by making sure the narrative is steered away from "Everything's fine now and there's no racism or oppression" when nothing could be further from the truth.
So yeah, it's helps.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Is it against the law to play back the sound effect of a gunshot? Perhaps even at high volume?
Look! It's the Keystone Cops!!
I never said the clips are good for anything else than quick filling of the magazine. Then again,the clips for most WW1 rifles had exactly the same function, the only difference was that the magazines generally weren't detachable.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
cops aint going to get there in time, or do shit but mop up.
Yes I totally agree, that was my point. But wouldn't it be better for them to be able to be much less hesitant moving in because they knew exactly what had happened and if there were still armed suspects on-scnee? It's certainly better for the people who are shot that medics can move in more quickly.
and surveillance societies, by the government already far too big
Here again I actually agree with you (well except the part where I suck balls or want anything to do with the corporate state which I am way more against than you are).
This is not surveillance though. The drones are asleep most of the time, only go out when responding to a specific gunshot location or a 911 request from a citizen where you know there's a problem already and someone needs help. That is not surveillance it's simply quicker response and data flow to units that are going there anyway, to provide more details than gunshot sensors or a caller alone may provide.
This is a perfect match for drone use because drones really can't be out for long periods anyway so they literally CANNOT be used for classic surveillance like a CCTV can, and are cheap enough you could easily blanket a city with great coverage for very little cost.
They are also far better for this use because CCTV's simply cannot be looking everywhere or can be easily disabled ahead of time, whereas drones being very mobile are much less prone to being blocked from monitoring the aftermath of a shooting - including cars and/or people leaving the scene.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That would be useless against the kind of criminal that is most problematic right now, the kind that do not care if they get caught because they are on a suicidal mission.
It would be extremely useful for the kinds of attacks we have seen it cities, with a small number of attackers shooting civilians. You would have a drone in the area super quickly and it could follow any suspect(s) found, but even MORE importantly than that lets police know where attackers are NOT. Lots of people wait for medial care while police clear an area, but using the drones police could know in the minutes (or tens of minutes) it took to arrive that an area was safe to send medical aid and offices into and through.
You can get a view of the scene if you like but that's not going to solve the problem. What's likely to solve the problem is people able to shoot back...
Yes I totally agree and that is a great idea, I would also be happier if everyone were armed and also think we'd not see as many attacks, certainly not with the same degree of success...
But imagine this - what if all of the people in the area could ALSO see this drone footage? They would know if an attacker was on the way to where they were and could find good cover to shoot from. It would prevent people from being caught unawares. Imagine it being like an Amber Alert, only now your phone is pulling up a video feed and map automatically comparing your location to the location of known attackers...
That last part is probably a pipe dream as the police are super-reluctant to share that kind of data real time, but I think because it would be data about the attackers and not police positions, they could be persuaded.
The drones could only be up for 30 minutes or so but that's probably enough time to resolve the situation, especially in a world where everyone around the attacker was more fully aware.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Han shot first. Greedo never shot at all.
True but the GGP was about .22.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They are much quieter with small calibers. They're still not silent. They don't sound anything like they do in the movies. (Yes, I've fired quite a few rounds through a suppressor.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Trump voters are retarded. Discuss.
Facts can't be discussed.
Just for the record, wikipedia claims the incident that killed Shannon Smith occured during June, not during New Year celebrations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon's_law_(Arizona)
The magazines use clips, not the firearms themselves. Your pictures do not prove the prior poster wrong.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
its a step in the right direction.
Yeah, I've never understood the "laws are useless because criminals break laws" approach. You hear it a lot in the Second Amendment community.
If you are referring to "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Well, that is one of those word games that proves itself. What it is really going after is that by outlawing guns, law abiding citizens are not allowed to have guns. If you wade past the extremist (AKA the absolutely no gun regulations crowd) you will find that most people agree to background check as long as it is reasonable. When I took my Concealed Weapons class, even my instructor called "constitutional carry" asinine.
~Less think, more do
not enough people report gunshots when they're heard, for reasons or not. not enough people can discern a gunshot from a firework like well-made software can (should be able to).
i just always figured that cellphone masts were being used for this, along with being able to created 3d images of the area within their triangle.
Yeah, I've never understood the "laws are useless because criminals break laws" approach. You hear it a lot in the Second Amendment community.
The simile I've heard is "if the problem you have is yahoos driving through your town doing 100, reducing the speed limit from 25 to 5 won't solve your problems". The perception (and reality, in my opinion) is that the law abiding are saddled with restrictions ranging from hassles to harassment to criminalization (yes, jail time), while the people doing the shooting/wounding/killing aren't deterred The restrictions are then deemed ineffective, and *more* laws are passed. Lather, rinse repeat. Here in California, it's been stated the the goal is to eliminate "gun culture". What's happening is that the law abiding gun culture is being hounded out of existence, leaving criminal gun culture as remainder
This site has been following ShotSpotter tech for a couple of years now:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...
Near as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be a huge reduction in gun crime as a result of this technology - mostly due to the fact that many gun crimes are committed with stolen guns (that are ditched after a shooting) and the fact that criminals don't hang around after a shooting waiting for the cops.
This technology stinks of Redflex and the red light camera fiasco there...
No, simple statistics prove it's untrue. ~36% of people in the US are Black/Latino. This means that if "Driving while $COLOR" is an "offense" and unequivocally get pulled over, you would simply have to see nothing but people pulled over. Given a benign traffic stop takes ~15m, there aren't enough cops in the US to enforce those 'unwritten' rules. Even if half of the cops were "racists", there would still be a significant discrepancy in the amount of work those cops do.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Sure, I was addressing the poster, and his posting history, not this specific example.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A more apt comparison would be, "Yahoos are driving through your town doing 100, so the only solution is to get rid of all speed limits".
This is basically the argument from the pro-gun lobby, who by the way, want power to revert to the states except not the power to restrict gun ownership in any way. Federalism for thee, but not for me, in other words.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not saying it is a good idea, but I am pointing out a potential issue that could arise. Contingencies are something that ought not to be ignored, no matter how trivial.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Says the one who thinks assuming things about others is actually a logical rebuttal to compensate for the inability to consider the fact that different building densities, and atmospheric conditions affect how a sound is perceived.. I actually have been shooting, at ranges - don't get to do it often, but it is a lot of fun. I go with my brother, he shoots a pistol, I stick to a .22 caliber rifle. I'd have to be literally deaf to not know what a gunshot sounds like. When I did what I did in the story, the sound echoed like crazy, scared the crap out of people (inadvertently, of course) - even this crackhead who was sitting on the steps to the subway, who had previously been cursing off everybody walking near her, shut up. 0_0
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
A more apt comparison would be, "Yahoos are driving through your town doing 100, so the only solution is to get rid of all speed limits".
You conveniently left out the 2nd half of my argument: the change in laws doesn't reduce the actual murder rate, it only makes new criminals (with victim-less crimes); when the new laws are ineffectual, then *more* laws are passed, making *more* new crimes/criminals.
This is basically the argument from the pro-gun lobby, who by the way, want power to revert to the states except not the power to restrict gun ownership in any way. Federalism for thee, but not for me, in other words.
Similarly to the rights in the 1st, 4th and 5th amendment? Why shouldn't those also be subject to varying enforcement in varying states? Ha! Slashdot sig quote: "The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader."
A typical gunshot is over 150db, a 9mm pistol runs about 160db. That would be one amazing paper bag. Unbelieveable, actually.
Yeah I wouldn't be shocked if that wouldn't be detected reliably as a gunshot by this system. That's probably OK, essentially no one uses a 22lr long gun in violent crimes. The guns criminals use (pistols) run about 20-30 db higher which doesn't look like much, but 160db is actually 1000x louder than 130db .....
If laws are outlawed only outlaws will have laws!
Man, you really need that seminar!
The six states with the lowest rates of gun-related death are Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, which all have relatively strict gun control laws.
Yes, a change in laws does reduce gun deaths.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why to double down on _wrong_.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Banning what? Celebratory gun firing? Do you think it's "big government" to ban people shooting into the air in populated areas? Who are you fighting? No one is coming to get your guns here pal. They're only asking for them to be used responsibly.
That's why I defend my 2nd amendment right to silencers. When I have to shoot someone in self-defense, I don't want Big Brother picking up the supersonic double-crack from my pistol. I already "solved the problem." I'd rather Big Brother doesn't stick his nose in my business trying to double-check my work.
Additionally, these microphones also pick up other sounds, like car sounds, which have been used as evidence too. They also pick up conversations.
Could you source that info? I'm not saying they can't, but it seems unlikely that microphones on poles and building tops that are designed to be triggered by 140+db gunshots, but not by 120db thunder are being used to record even loud 70db conversations.
Not to mention, if they are talking that loud, they should expect people to overhear.
HA! Thanks for that. :D
There are mostly false positives. The new system with the high subscription cost is for humans to listen and confirm if it is gunfire. It brings the accuracy way up. I can't site how much. I'm still looking for that information. The unmonitored accuracy was atrocious.
Solid point
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
If you read the book to which the article you linked is citing, you'd know that isn't accurate. The book is about vague laws and overreaching LOEs and prosecutors.
It would be accurate to say: The only reason you aren't in jail is because the police aren't targeting *you*.
You cannot put that in the rifle and fire it, so your example is flawed. Sure, you can use a "clip" to help speed load a magazine, but you must remove the clip from the magazine before attaching the magazine to the rifle for shooting. A true "clip" is used in the firearm while shooting, such as that used on WWII M1 Garand's. Where the clip was loaded into the rifle, and when the last shot was fired, the clip was ejected out. Otherwise, the use a "Clip" in the form that you showed, is just a version of a speed-loader for a box magazine. The rifles mentioned however fire from a box magazine sans any "clips".
His statement didn't go anywhere near the extreme that you're stating. There's a big difference between anarchy and minimal government.
Just another day in Paradise