I've also been blogging about ShotSpotter and review the evidence that the system is good or bad. https://quickthoughts.substack.com/p/shotspotter-good-or-bad

I've also been blogging about ShotSpotter and review the evidence that the system is good or bad. https://quickthoughts.substack.com/p/shotspotter-good-or-bad https://quickthoughts.substack.com/p/shotspotter-good-or-bad There's a lot of evidence that ShotSpotter detects almost all gunshots and that's been validated by multiple third party groups. ShotSpotter also seems to alert to things that are either false positives (construction sounds, fireworks, etc) or are not useful. Chicago IG says 9/10 times when officers respond to a ShotSpotter alert they find nothing. 1/10 times it leads to an arrest, but the arrest isn't always strictly related to the ShotSpotter event - e.g. police responding to an event stop a speeding car and discover drug paraphernalia or an unrelated gun. Some cities, e.g. Atlanta, discontinued ShotSpotter over cost benefit concerns. From their analysis it seemed a better use of money to hire more officers than use ShotSpotter. Still, it's in use in 84 metro areas today. Ultimately, I think it should be up to the local community. The individual community is the one who will most benefit (if it is beneficial) and suffer from increased police incursions.