14 ms·

ShotSpotter does not reduce gun violence or increase clearance rates

102 points by apwheele 2y ago

Neywiny 2y ago
Cool tech in theory. I didn't read how the study was conducted but I'll assume the results are correct. The note on the time to reporting makes me wonder about victim survival likelihood. I didn't see that in there, but I assume that 93 seconds could be the difference for someone who was shot. 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.
- apwheele 2y ago
  So showing up 1-2 minutes earlier does indeed increase survival rates. For instances in which someone is actually shot, I estimate that -2 minutes = 1% increase in survival, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12061-020-09362-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12061-020-09362-3. So in that case, ShotSpotter will save a life around every 100 shooting victims it covers. 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.
  - Neywiny 2y ago
    That's something I didn't consider, you're right. I guess they have to weigh lives saved versus cost. A decision I am glad I don't have to make. Thanks for finding that data.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    As a paramedic, drive time isn't necessarily the biggest factor, I feel, it's response times for EMS, particularly for wounds that are not easy to tourniquet. 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").
- zomg 2y ago
  one of the purported justifications for the shot spotter system is that, in cities where gun violence is prevalent, people don't call the police when shots are heard.
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    If it's anything like loud mufflers where I live if you called every time you heard one you'd never be able to go about your day.
- mrangle 2y ago
  The guiding principle of science is to never assume that the results are correct. 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.
  - Neywiny 2y ago
    Yeah multi million dollar decisions, lifesaving decisions, this is intense.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Also there have been a history of ‘industry’ influenced studies in the opposite direction. The whole thing is solidly dirty.
  - smt88 2y ago
    I don't see political language at all. I also don't understand why this would be a politicized topic. 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. 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."
    - mrangle 2y ago
      >I don't see political language at all. 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.
- ljsprague 2y ago
  >This technology doesn't replace humans calling, right? I thought that was the problem: that people in certain neighborhoods didn't call to report shootings.
limpbizkitfan 2y ago
ShotSpotter seemed (in Chicago, at least) to be a huge source of graft. Before word got out of the cancellation there were some nodes installed in the more right wing or blighted wards last minute. Scope is really important when people sign a contract. All ShotSpotter did was generate overtime hours for CPD without having any noticeable effect to crime. The amount of money ShotSpotter gives to Ald. Napolitano or the media to stoke anxiety about the city saving on SaaS bills is insane…
- apwell23 2y ago
  why does the mayor keep equivocating about its cancellation then after specifically running on the issue. he turned it into schrodinger's cancellation.
- PM_me_your_math 2y ago
  [dead]
elintknower 2y ago
Well... if you don't use the data from shot spotter in an actionable way and the mal-incentives for murder / illicit firearm possession don't change... yeah a tool meant to observe and record instances of gun violence probably won't prevent it. This isn't about politics it's about understanding what a functioning society looks like.
- creaghpatr 2y ago
  Agree with your first point, but I think most if not all politics boils down to defining what a functioning society looks like.
  - lazide 2y ago
    ‘Everyone is trying to save the world, they just can’t agree on how.’ 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.
- morkalork 2y ago
  Considering the false positive rate was 80%, getting something useful out of it is going to be hard
pxeger1 2y ago
Related: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighbourhood https://computer.rip/2024-03-01-listening-in-on-the-neighborhood.html https://computer.rip/2024-03-01-listening-in-on-the-neighbor... (3 months ago, 523 points, 399 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39576974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39576974)
phendrenad2 2y ago
A lot of problems can only be solved by a combination of solutions A and B. If A and B have never existed together, it's trivial to write research papers "proving" that A and B are ineffective. Of course they are.
- smt88 2y ago
  > combination of solutions A and B 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.
  - StressedDev 2y ago
    The OP never said ShotSpotter is selling A and B. The OP is making a general statement. Note I could see ShotSpotter combined with something else as being an effective crime fighting tool. I could also see ShotSpotter never working well.
    - smt88 2y ago
      What is an example of the "something else"? Everything works better if you combine it with an unnamed, unknown thing that makes it betters. It's a nonsense assertion.
      - ljsprague 2y ago
        Aggressive law enforcement.
        smt88 2y ago
        So you think the police were responding to ShotSpotter alerts and bringing people hamburgers? 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.
spoonjim 2y ago
This is not because of the technology but because of broken governance. 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.
- RiOuseR 2y ago
  [dead]
- dmd 2y ago
  Fill the prisons with police, you say? Sounds good to me.
  - spoonjim 2y ago
    Your worldview has produced Chicago. Mine has produced Singapore.
    - darby_nine 2y ago
      Mmm, chicago
    - syntheticcdo 2y ago
      Singapore has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world regarding ownership and possession. If you want America to be more like Singapore, start by repealing the second amendment, not increasing policing.
    - quickthrowman 2y ago
      > In addition, Singapore society is highly regulated through the criminalisation of many activities which are considered as fairly harmless in other countries. These include failing to flush toilets after use,[90] littering,[91] jaywalking,[92] the possession of pornography,[93] the sale of chewing gum,[94] and, prior to December 2022, sexual activity such as oral and anal sex between men.[95] > 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.
seventyone 2y ago
It does a great job picking up voices though
Solololo 2y ago
It's incredible how technosolutionism keeps coming back in Law Enforcement in either a reliance on the Chilling Effect or as a 'new' way of Predictive Policing, while they never work

102 points by apwheele 2y ago

Cool tech in theory. I didn't read how the study was conducted but I'll assume the results are correct. The note on the time to reporting makes me wonder about victim survival likelihood. I didn't see that in there, but I assume that 93 seconds could be the difference for someone who was shot. 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.

apwheele 2y ago
So showing up 1-2 minutes earlier does indeed increase survival rates. For instances in which someone is actually shot, I estimate that -2 minutes = 1% increase in survival, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12061-020-09362-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12061-020-09362-3. So in that case, ShotSpotter will save a life around every 100 shooting victims it covers. 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.
- Neywiny 2y ago
  That's something I didn't consider, you're right. I guess they have to weigh lives saved versus cost. A decision I am glad I don't have to make. Thanks for finding that data.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  As a paramedic, drive time isn't necessarily the biggest factor, I feel, it's response times for EMS, particularly for wounds that are not easy to tourniquet. 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").
zomg 2y ago
one of the purported justifications for the shot spotter system is that, in cities where gun violence is prevalent, people don't call the police when shots are heard.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  If it's anything like loud mufflers where I live if you called every time you heard one you'd never be able to go about your day.
mrangle 2y ago
The guiding principle of science is to never assume that the results are correct. 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.
- Neywiny 2y ago
  Yeah multi million dollar decisions, lifesaving decisions, this is intense.
- lazide 2y ago
  Also there have been a history of ‘industry’ influenced studies in the opposite direction. The whole thing is solidly dirty.
- smt88 2y ago
  I don't see political language at all. I also don't understand why this would be a politicized topic. 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. 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."
  - mrangle 2y ago
    >I don't see political language at all. 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.
ljsprague 2y ago
>This technology doesn't replace humans calling, right? I thought that was the problem: that people in certain neighborhoods didn't call to report shootings.

limpbizkitfan 2y ago

ShotSpotter seemed (in Chicago, at least) to be a huge source of graft. Before word got out of the cancellation there were some nodes installed in the more right wing or blighted wards last minute. Scope is really important when people sign a contract. All ShotSpotter did was generate overtime hours for CPD without having any noticeable effect to crime. The amount of money ShotSpotter gives to Ald. Napolitano or the media to stoke anxiety about the city saving on SaaS bills is insane…

apwell23 2y ago
why does the mayor keep equivocating about its cancellation then after specifically running on the issue. he turned it into schrodinger's cancellation.
PM_me_your_math 2y ago
[dead]

elintknower 2y ago

Well... if you don't use the data from shot spotter in an actionable way and the mal-incentives for murder / illicit firearm possession don't change... yeah a tool meant to observe and record instances of gun violence probably won't prevent it. This isn't about politics it's about understanding what a functioning society looks like.

creaghpatr 2y ago
Agree with your first point, but I think most if not all politics boils down to defining what a functioning society looks like.
- lazide 2y ago
  ‘Everyone is trying to save the world, they just can’t agree on how.’ 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.
morkalork 2y ago
Considering the false positive rate was 80%, getting something useful out of it is going to be hard

pxeger1 2y ago

Related: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighbourhood https://computer.rip/2024-03-01-listening-in-on-the-neighborhood.html https://computer.rip/2024-03-01-listening-in-on-the-neighbor... (3 months ago, 523 points, 399 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39576974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39576974)

phendrenad2 2y ago

A lot of problems can only be solved by a combination of solutions A and B. If A and B have never existed together, it's trivial to write research papers "proving" that A and B are ineffective. Of course they are.

smt88 2y ago
> combination of solutions A and B 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.
- StressedDev 2y ago
  The OP never said ShotSpotter is selling A and B. The OP is making a general statement. Note I could see ShotSpotter combined with something else as being an effective crime fighting tool. I could also see ShotSpotter never working well.
  - smt88 2y ago
    What is an example of the "something else"? Everything works better if you combine it with an unnamed, unknown thing that makes it betters. It's a nonsense assertion.
    - ljsprague 2y ago
      Aggressive law enforcement.
      - smt88 2y ago
        So you think the police were responding to ShotSpotter alerts and bringing people hamburgers? 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.

spoonjim 2y ago

This is not because of the technology but because of broken governance. 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.

RiOuseR 2y ago
[dead]
dmd 2y ago
Fill the prisons with police, you say? Sounds good to me.
- spoonjim 2y ago
  Your worldview has produced Chicago. Mine has produced Singapore.
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    Mmm, chicago
  - syntheticcdo 2y ago
    Singapore has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world regarding ownership and possession. If you want America to be more like Singapore, start by repealing the second amendment, not increasing policing.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    > In addition, Singapore society is highly regulated through the criminalisation of many activities which are considered as fairly harmless in other countries. These include failing to flush toilets after use,[90] littering,[91] jaywalking,[92] the possession of pornography,[93] the sale of chewing gum,[94] and, prior to December 2022, sexual activity such as oral and anal sex between men.[95] > 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.

seventyone 2y ago

It does a great job picking up voices though

Solololo 2y ago

It's incredible how technosolutionism keeps coming back in Law Enforcement in either a reliance on the Chilling Effect or as a 'new' way of Predictive Policing, while they never work