ShotSpotter does not reduce gun violence or increase clearance rates
vitalcitynyc.org
vitalcitynyc.org
That's not what ShotSpotter is selling. They're selling A. They tell you to buy A and it will reduce crime, increase arrests, or both.
What exactly do you think B is, anyway?
Your idea not to isolate variables is exactly what leads to bad science.
Everything works better if you combine it with an unnamed, unknown thing that makes it betters. It's a nonsense assertion.
We already know "aggressive law enforcement" reduces crime. If you put enough young men in prison for loitering, marijuana, and other victimless offenses, crime will go down because you have accidentally arrested a few would-be violent offenders.
But that's insanely unjust and expensive, so people pitch us things like ShotSpotter to make cops smarter.
Sure at a greater expense to the taxpayer than every single alternative tactic to crime reduction. Smells like a jobs program to me.....
I have a vague memory of some quote about "if you want to solve crime, keep young men off the streets until they're 25 and you'll have eliminated 90% of crime but that's not a workable policy" (and about 90% of traffic accidents, I reckon.)
> insanely unjust and expensive
Definitely that.
Gun control needs to be a nation-wide policy, and it needs to be implemented with all the common-sense measures like buying back the guns from population - see Australia for one example where it worked.
Gun control is working out great, for tyrannical governments.
1. Get congressmen to earmark grant funds for shot spotter.
2. Purchase & Install
3. …
4. Cops get a report of loud noises.
The only useful thing I’m aware of is that these are installed in stadiums or other mass gathering venues and can triangulate location of a shooter in a chaotic environment.
he turned it into schrodinger's cancellation.
When someone is shooting other people, that person must be removed from society if that society is to remain functional.
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.
> Singapore retains both corporal punishment (in the form of caning) and capital punishment (by hanging) as punishments for serious offences. For some offences, most notably trafficking in drugs above a certain specified quantity, the imposition of these penalties is mandatory.
I’d rather hear gunshots and deal with property crime every day than be subjected to the above.
I wouldn't. Which is a good reason to not have the same laws everywhere, I suppose!
Sex between two men, while previously banned, was not enforced either. It is not uncommon to see openly homosexual men in Singapore.
I mean it has a pretty big thing to do with it. It objectively doesn't work
I think California tried to tackle this issue by fingerprinting bullets (microscopic stamps I think) which can then be traced back to the person who bought them, but these people just end up buying bullets from other states and transporting them to California.
This is a very complex issue, prosecutors can’t just wave a magic wand and selectively put these people away. You have to find them, and build a case against them that has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were the perpetrator(s).
I assure you this is not true in Memphis and many other cities with District Attorneys that are focused on elimination of jail time for nearly all crime. The DA blames gun policy, but then releases violent criminals (with real victims) back out on minimal bond. It is really sick. It’s not a complex issue.
This isn't about politics it's about understanding what a functioning society looks like.
As it were.
Though some do seem to think the way to save the world is for them to get filthy rich and everyone else to die.
I don't understand how police could show up later. This technology doesn't replace humans calling, right? I didn't have time to check out that other report, it's very long.
Part of the rub is that people being hit are not all that common. (It may be false positives, or just no recovered shells on scene, but many of the ShotSpotter calls result in a nothingburger.) So what has happened in some cities is that ShotSpotter has increased workload in going to calls, so may have had negative spillover in that regards.
After that, it's also generally not distance or speed of drive time - usually the factor that determines speed to the hospital is "opticom", aka traffic light pre-emption. I can move a lot more smoothly if my opticom is making the entire "lane" of intersections green for me, even if traffic is garbage.
There's also a self-selection in that study. Reality is most GSWs do not NEED to go to a L1 Trauma Center (the difference between L1 and L2 in most cases is as simple as "teaching facilities", the difference between these and L3 is who is required to have certain people physically at the hospital 24/7 versus "on-call").
Two observations: this is a highly political topic and there is highly political language in the linked article. Its conclusions also rely on the integrity of a multitude of referenced studies.
What this article and topic deserves is a colonoscopy level research critique / review.
The whole thing is solidly dirty.
It's important to note that this researcher would easily get published regardless of what she found. If ShotSpotter works at all, that's a huge result! If it doesn't work, that's also very notable! And if the evidence is mixed, it still contradicts every other unbiased study that shows that ShotSpotter doesn't work. In a way, this was the most boring result.
Plus the author seems to go out of her way to be balanced, writing things like:
> " None of the seven prior investigation evaluations identified by my colleagues and I found evidence that case clearance increased following ShotSpotter deployment. While these findings read as an indictment of the technology, future research should determine if the manner by which police implement and utilize ShotSpotter impacts the likelihood that program goals will be met."
The article links to openly political articles. Whatever the supposed context (excuse), this is a political act in the context of a research presentation. As if this is not enough, the article quotes unsupported statements of Brandon Johnson as well as counterarguments (though the latter are mostly burred in the article link). Which is unnecessary to present their data and is unequivocally political. That they are "both siding" the political argument should not be an argument: a. because it is on its face inappropriate in such a presentation and b. such a tack tries to hurdle the obvious critique question that would follow. Which is whether both sides are presented evenly. Are they acting as political journalists or trying to present data? Give us a break. The authors can write what they wish, of course, but don't ask us to turn a blind eye to the politics that are inserted into the article. Whatever the excuse.
> I also don't understand why this would be a politicized topic.
The topic is openly politicized, as everyone can see from the fact that it is hotly debated on the political stage. It is difficult to believe that you are being serious.
>There's a for-profit corporation selling snake-oil to cities, and then there are people (like the researcher/author) who want to reduce crime and save taxpayer money.
Okay, I see.
I rest my case.
What a waste of time.
>It's important to note that this researcher would easily get published regardless of what she found. If ShotSpotter works at all, that's a huge result! If it doesn't work, that's also very notable! And if the evidence is mixed, it still contradicts every other unbiased study that shows that ShotSpotter doesn't work. In a way, this was the most boring result.
It reads to me like you don't understand the relevant principles under discussion when it comes to research.
>Plus the author seems to go out of her way to be balanced, writing things like:
Is this your idea of research critique? Because this is the type of analysis, generally speaking anyway, that is accomplished in actual competent research critique. And a lot more. Which was the sum of my comment.
We must be in agreement that what this topic calls for is intensive critique and review of all research.
I'll especially be interested in whether or not the metrics are even meaningful, let alone if the results are high evidence, or if the research design itself is faulty. Of course, I wouldn't dare suggest a political reason for that should I see obvious faults in it. Like I said, I'd await a real critique / review and let that speak for itself.
I thought that was the problem: that people in certain neighborhoods didn't call to report shootings.