Gunshot Locators...for or against?

[Bay Area]

Gunshot locators coming to a city near you...if they are not there already. The Shotspot system hepls law enforcement identify a gunshot, pinpoint its location, and get the nearest squad car on the scene within minutes

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/us/shots-heard-pinpointed-and-argued-over.html?pagewanted=all

The detection system, which triangulates sound picked up by acoustic sensors placed on buildings, utility poles and other structures, is part of a wave of technological advances that is transforming the way police officers do their jobs.

The technology, they say, has given officers critical information about what to expect upon arriving at a crime scene — like whether a gun was fired from a car and if so, how fast and in what direction the car was traveling — and has offered a level of precision in locating gunfire rarely afforded by 911 calls.

The system allows law enforcement to be on the scene of a shot fired within minutes, when prior, an officer had to receive a call from a citizen about a gunshot. What the system has done, police have found, is illustrate just how many gunshots go unreported.

Sgt. Chris Bolton of the Oakland, Calif., Police Department, which has installed ShotSpotter in high-crime neighborhoods in East and West Oakland, said that before the system was in place, “a patrol officer would receive a gunshot call from the community and you could spend up to 30 minutes driving within, I would say, three to four blocks of that location, just to make sure there isn’t a victim in need of assistance, a crime ongoing or any evidence.”

So what say you? Do you want a Gunshot Locator in your city? Or are there privacy or police state concerns? Im against. Let the citizens work with the police to capture criminals.

Video illustrating the Shotspot system in action:

[YT]S98KFOyjdeI[/YT]

 

[Toastytoy]

against. we are becoming a police state

 

[TheyAreSurfers]

I doubt this thing can tell firecracker from a gunshot.
But I'm still against for same as above reason.

 

[Pliny Pete]

Cold dead hands motherfucker

 

[Kais11]

Its been up in my neighborhood for a few years now. But I haven't seen a change in violence so im against it.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Unnecessary in all but the most crime ridden areas. Almost certainly not going to catch crimes, as most criminals don't stay in place after shooting someone.

This ain't "American Gangster" where you shoot someone in broad daylight and then go eat your meal. You shoot and then you run/drive away.

 

[ben236]

Not against it in principle in the sense that I don't see this as any kind of invasion of privacy. But I'm not sure how effective this system would be. It's not like a criminal is going to stick around after firing gunshots in public.

And how much does a system like this cost?

 

[Ocean Chief]

Against. How I dispense of rats in my own apartment is no one's business.

 

[Which Doctor]

Two tumbs way down there fella.

 

[Bay Area]

Not against it in principle in the sense that I don't see this as any kind of invasion of privacy. But I'm not sure how effective this system would be. It's not like a criminal is going to stick around after firing gunshots in public.

And how much does a system like this cost?

I think they charge per square mile. OakTown is getting rid of the system because it's too costly. According to this article, the are paying $264,000 a year. The majority of the residents want to keep the system.

http://m.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-cops-aim-to-scrap-gunfire-detecting-5316060.php

 

[Bay Area]

This ain't "American Gangster" where you shoot someone in broad daylight and then go eat your meal.

20 percent.

 

[weed]

I don't want the cops showing up at my door after I eat Indian food.

 

[MortalWombat]

Everyone has the right to shoot their guns in peace.

 

[Bay Area]

News clip on the effectiveness of the system:

[Yt]H76gsdjnOXY[/MEDIA]

 

[Lee978]

I agree with the guy who argued that we don't have enough data yet to tell whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs of these systems. Like Alucard mentioned, these systems would only be needed in the highest crime areas and those are the areas where this system would seem to be the least effective as the people who live in those cities aren't clamoring to chat with the police about what they saw or heard. So I'd have to say for now I'm against.

 

[Ruprecht]

Be a complete waste of time and money here, but I guess it might be viable in the US.
Although maybe y'all would just switch to subsonics and silencers. Yee-haw!

Edit: Although I just checked their website and they claim they pick out subsonic sounds as well.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This seems effective in densely populated areas with lots of ambient surveillance. Pinpoint the location and time, then check all the local security cameras for whatever you can find.

 

[second sight]

whatever the question is, more government is always the answer

 

[second sight]

Be a complete waste of time and money here, but I guess it might be viable in the US.
Although maybe y'all would just switch to subsonics and silencers. Yee-haw!

Edit: Although I just checked their website and they claim they pick out subsonic sounds as well.

subsonics work well in a suppressor because they don't actually break the sound barrier, the gun powder still explodes and makes a loud noise

 

[Ruprecht]

subsonics work well in a suppressor because they don't actually break the sound barrier, the gun powder still explodes and makes a loud noise

I'd read about this technology before and the older systems worked by picking out supersonic sound signatures, obviously this system is more advanced.
Not sure if it would work with suppressed subsonics or not.
I use subsonics all the time when I'm close to developed areas, avoids that supersonic crack which echoes through the hills and draws attention.
Subsonic .22LR from an 18" plus barrel isn't much louder than a high powered air rifle.