>At a cost of $33 mil a year for the city of Chicago, I personally can’t help but wonder if there’s something else that could be done with that money to reduce

>At a cost of $33 mil a year for the city of Chicago, I personally can’t help but wonder if there’s something else that could be done with that money to reduce the crime rate. Even if one assumes all the other parts are unreliable, I think the most important question is what percentage of confirmed gunfire was identified by the system which otherwise would never have been discovered, or only discovered more than 30 minutes later. If there are even a few cases like that, then I think that could lead to someone potentially being saved when they'd otherwise face certain death; potentially due to bleeding out over a long period of time with no one nearby to help. To me, that alone would justify the cost. This other HN comment is one example: >For instance, the murder of Seth Rich in my home city (ignore the stupid conspiracy theories) was not followed by a call but was found by shotspotter which is how it was responded to. Given enough instances like that, it seems pretty plausible that in at least one case, someone who would've died could be rescued.