Three officers approached the boy’s house, with one asking “What you doing bro, you good?” They heard a loud bang, later determined to be fireworks, and shot at the child. Fortunately, no physical injuries were recorded. In initial reports, police falsely claimed that they fired at a “man” who had fired on officers.
In a subsequent assessment of the event, the Chicago Civilian Office of Police Accountability (“COPA”) concluded that “a firearm was not used against the officers.” Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling placed all attending officers on administrative duty for 30 days and is investigating whether the officers violated department policies.
ShotSpotter is the largest company which produces and distributes audio gunshot detection for U.S. cities and police departments. Currently, it is used by 100 law enforcement agencies.
Experts have long been warning of these tools’ the inaccuracy.
for anyone wanting defend this kind of technology, i get you on principle but remember you don’t even need to scroll past the first two sentences of the Wikipedia article to identify how bad this specific implementation is:
SoundThinking, Inc. (formerly ShotSpotter Inc.) is a publicly traded, Fremont, California-based company known for its controversial gunfire locator service.[2][3] ShotSpotter claims it can identify whether or not a gunshot was fired in an area in order to dispatch law enforcement, though researchers have noted concerns about effectiveness, reliability, privacy, and equity.
Highly recommend reading the full article; it reads like dark satire how bad this million dollar “technology” is
The information is then forwarded to humans who purportedly have the expertise to verify whether the sound was gunfire (and not, for example, a car backfiring), and whether to deploy officers to the scene.
How many cars are around that still backfire loudly enough to be mistaken for gunfire?
In my area, I’ll hear cars intentionally tuned to backfire probably multiple times a day. It’s extremely annoying and sounds very similar to gunshots.
My modified car does more than I like. It needs a new tune and currently runs stupidly rich.
That said, it is rarer in stock modern fuel injected engines which can more accurately adjust the fuel to the air and throttle position than old school carbs can.
How do Americans still allow guns to be so easily available?
Isn’t it well past the point where incidents involving guns should almost never happen?
Can nothing be done to stop it?
Cultural narcissism. People are obsessed with their rights but don’t think in their responsibilities.
I mean there are a couple issues that make gun control difficult in the US:
-
Huge number of guns already in the country. Even if stricter gun laws were passed there are so many guns in circulation that it will still be easy to get illegal guns. Many of the guns have been sold or changed owners multiple times meaning there’s no database/etc that will let these guns be easily tracked down or collected.
-
it’s easy to compare the US to Europe due to having the same economic output and looking somewhat similar in size on a map, but the US is about twice as large as Europe with less than half of Europe’s population. A huge amount of the country is rural, and they want guns for wild animals/security/etc.
-
Relatively unsecured Mexican border. Funnily enough this is one thing I would think both political parties would be in agreement over. For any serious gun control to work, the Mexican border would need to be secured. It’s probably a moot point because of the first point though, but you can’t try to resolve the first point without having more control over what enters the country.
-
This isn’t a US specific issue, but 3d printed guns are a thing now, and are getting better all the time. I think countries that have largely been gun free are going to have increasing issues with criminals having guns, and their law enforcement will have to adapt.
So basically there are a lot of people who want to own guns, and many of them have legitimate reasons for some gun ownership. Passing strong gun laws will be problematic for those people, while being unlikely to actually reduce the availability of illegal guns. Gun laws would probably help with school shootings though since I think most of those guns are legally owned guns stolen from family members.
I’m sure people have some great counter arguments for my points, but my main point is it’s not a simple as “ban guns”. And I’m not even getting into 2nd amendment and the idea that the American people have a responsibility to stay armed enough to hold their government accountable through force if needed.
but the US is about twice as large as Europe
Excuse me? When did that happen?
The US is about twice as large as the EU. Europe is not the EU.
Thanks for your reply and interesting points. I’ll try and argue against them as I see it.
there are so many guns in circulation that it will still be easy to get illegal guns.
True. However, is that a good reason not to make it more difficult? Isn’t any time a good time to do that?
A huge amount of the country is rural, and they want guns for wild animals/security/etc.
This is about regulation and those who need guns for certain situations would be catered for. I’m not really aware of similar levels of incidents in Canada, which I think is due largely to regulation.
For any serious gun control to work, the Mexican border would need to be secured.
I’ve no idea what the figures are, but I’m guessing that a very large amount of weapons involved in gun crime are made in the US. If you take that out of the equation, gun crime will reduce. Border control won’t make as much difference as regulating guns, if at all.
3d printed guns
It’s definitely a concern, but I’d be more concerned in places that don’t have strong gun regulation in the first place.
Passing strong gun laws will be problematic for those people
Good, it will make it less likely for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them as easily. If you should have them then you should be able to make a strong case for having them. That’s not a bad thing.
while being unlikely to actually reduce the availability of illegal guns.
As I said, I don’t see how it wouldn’t. Regulation means enforcement. Nothing will stop it completely but making it more difficult will reduce it drastically. And it’s not just the supply, it’s also the ownership. Making it more difficult to buy and own guns will make supply go down because many of the people who just want them won’t bother, it will be too much hassle to be worth bothering with.
my main point is it’s not a simple as “ban guns”.
I’m not advocating for a ban, just strong and enforced regulation.
2nd amendment and the idea that the American people have a responsibility to stay armed enough to hold their government accountable through force if needed.
How’s that going for you? Seriously, you think the people out there committing gun crime are going to join together into some kind of super people’s army and take down the government?
Or all the fucked up kids who steal dad’s gun to shoot up their school?
No, all the dads will join the neighborhood watch groups and march on the White House. Any time now.
Sorry to be cynical about it but that’s nonsense. I do think that Americans should get together and vote for leaders who regulate guns. That would be a good place to start.
-
What is even the purpose of this post? If you’re going to be so ignorant of US history, at least don’t act so high and mighty about your implications.
How do Americans still allow guns to be so easily available?
The 2nd Amendment, for one. It’s a constitutional amendment that hasn’t changed since the Constitution was written, back in 1787. It’s also the 2nd, and not say, the 20th, so its importance is more significant in the minds of the American public than certain ones we’ve gotten rid of, like the alcohol ban (18th).
It requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress to change a constitutional amendment, and that sure as fuck ain’t happening with today’s batshit crazy GOP. They can’t even keep their own party together with the right-wing crazies having fights with the extremely-right wing House majority leaders because they have the gall to “compromise”, which is the whole fucking point of Congress.
Besides, all of this talk of “banning guns” is unproductive. If you want to make change, start with regulations. Canada’s got a shit ton of guns, and nobody’s bitching about them, because they are properly regulated.
Isn’t it well past the point where incidents involving guns should almost never happen?
What the fuck does this question even mean? Is what “well past the point”? Why would “incidents involving guns” should almost never happen? Brits have gun bans, and they still have gun incidents.
Banning a thing doesn’t make it go away. I thought we learned this shit with the War on (some) Drugs. Or, for that manner, Prohibition. (Do you like gangs? Well, you can thank Prohibition for that shit.)
The 2nd Amendment, for one. It’s a constitutional amendment that hasn’t changed since the Constitution was written, back in 1787.
Isn’t that all about bearing arms so that the people can overthrow the government? Yeah, good luck with that. Who are you counting on, the gangs? School shooting kids? Rednecks? Good ol’ boys? Are they all getting together and marching in force as one?
ain’t happening with today’s batshit crazy GOP.
Then vote for people who make those changes for the better. If Trump gets in again I fear for us all, not just you guys.
all of this talk of “banning guns” is unproductive. If you want to make change, start with regulations.
That sir is exactly what I’m proposing. I agree with you completely, Canada being a great example.
What the fuck does this question even mean? Is what “well past the point”?
Good point. I think I was being rhetorical, which wasn’t very useful. I just find it crazy that the whole country hasn’t got together on this one thing at least. I know it’s not easy, but making it more difficult for people to shoot each other must be important to everyone?
Brits have gun bans, and they still have gun incidents.
Very rarely. But that’s not a good argument. I’m not sure about this kind of thing but I think that’s what they call whataboutism. Imagine if there were less gun crime in the US than the UK. Why not at least try?
Your arrogance is compounded by your ignorance in assuming that they are from the US. Lemmy is an international service.
I know they aren’t from the US, because an American wouldn’t ask such nationally-ignorant questions.
Hot take, but I actually think this is a good tool. Triangulating gun fire is pretty useful.
I am once again asking for proper police training and discipline. Even if the kid was actually shooting a gun in his backyard, they never should have opened fire.
ShotSpotter is inaccurate and unreliable. The amount of reflections you get in an urban environment make it very difficult to triangulate the source of a sound. It is falsely triggered by many sounds that are not gunshots such as fireworks and vehicles backfiring. Also, ShotSpotter costs a ridiculous amount of money that could be better spent on more police training and more patrols.
These are good point.
Municipal government really shouldn’t be signing the city up for expensive bullshit when there’s so many basics to take care of…
I hate this kind of surveillance.
But if it’s used in supplement to an actual report or as part of an investigation of a crime identified or reported in another manner, I can see some use to it.
But as an initial reason to go look into a possible shooting, I disagree with it entirely. If it were used as a means to send potential medical aid to a location, it could be also be beneficial. But sending law enforcement is the wrong response, imo. We would need to rework our first responder system though and stop sending police to every fucking thing.
Cops love wandering out into the city and gunning down innocent people. Stuff like shot spotter just gives them more excuses.
