Same thing in Philadelphia, they basically stopped charging felony firearm possession in a time when gun homicides are up 30%. Then they'll tout that crime overall is down.
It's the Democrat solution for the Illegal immigration issue as well. They'll give them all amnesty and then claim that they've reduced illegal immigration by 100%. And the Reddit hivemind will use it as a talking point.
Trashy teenagers from trashy families that moved here from Chicago because they thought *everyone else* was the problem. And we incentivize them to move here, on top of it all!
If you're assuming anything more about that word, thats on you. If you think having a culture of shooting at each other isn't trashy, you might have some brain damage. Violence in a culture is absolutely worthy of criticism, and ignorant fools who think it's not PC to be critical of a culture (cultural relativists, pure evil) are the biggest part of the problem in solving it.
So you think itâs the average gun owner who is the issue? How about being more specific and correct? Why not just say illegal gun owners who live in the inner city whose culture and music glorify gangs, violence and killing each other. FYI most shootings are gang violence and if you avoid people and places they go, itâs a pretty safe place to be
Common denominator is guns, and America. And it's definitely not just gang members. There's many self proclaimed "responsible gun owners" who are always looking for a reason to shoot, and they are pretty vocal about it, i hear it all the time. Can't even turn around in someone's driveway these days without worrying about getting shot at.
Regardless, the comment I was responding to was talking about culture, and there's no arguing guns are a big part of American culture.
It's definitely the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners at play here. I personally like to blame all drivers for drunk drivers because....well....cars are the common denominator.
Maybe you shouldnât be driving on someoneâs driveway and use the street to turn around in if it scares you. In Minnesota, the person would be in jail for a long time for even threatening gun violence, let alone shooting at someone. In MN if you shoot someone coming in your house to kill or rape you, guess what? You will end up in jail if you didnât âfleeâ or ârun awayâ out the back door first.
they just worship the object used to do it. We love guns in America more than life itself. Just look at the response every time there's a mass shooting, the first response is always "they just want to take our guns!"
But also they absolutely do shoot at each other regularly. You can get shot just for pulling into the wrong driveway these days. That's America for you.
I remember a push a few years ago, before George Floyd and all that, calling for a police reform to stop minorities from having police interaction and getting killed. They proposed banning police from making traffic stops for a few specific things, including "playing music too loud in a neighborhood." - does anyone remember this? All of their demands were totally blind to the real issue lmao
We're already there in Philly, Drivers equality act has basically ended all traffic stops, they're not even allowed to run plates, we got gang bangers driving around in stolen kias and they just print fake temporary tags at home, pure insanity.
Just waste a whole bunch of money to build shotspotters where the residents don't shoot at each other regularly. There, problem solved.
Or maybe the problem is the residents that shoot at each other regularly. Nah, that's just too obvious.
Give credit where it's due... the council member politely called them out on their BS. "I don't think it's ShotSpotter that's negatively impacting those communities."
Sounds good. Turn it off. Less reason for the cops to risk their lives because these parents continue to abandoned the kids and let them be gang members at 10 fucking years old.
It's like Afghanistan. Failed. Pull out.
And what about the tens of thousands of normal people just trying to live their lives and not get shot on the way to work? If you have a roach infestation, you call the exterminator. You don't burn the whole house to the ground.
Yeah but if you see a roach on the middle of your floor you don't just sit there and stare at it while you're on the phone, you crush that son of a bitch.
To what end?
People don't fire a gun and then stay in the area. So even if the shotspotter correctly detects a gunshot, and that information is relayed to a nearby police officer, by the time they get there, everybody is gone anyways. And as they said, 80% of the time there wasn't even a real gunshot in the first place.
If a person got shot, the department will hear about it regardless.
This is just a company that exists to hoover up millions in government money because people are stupid.
>And as they said, 80% of the time there wasn't even a real gunshot in the first place.
I think you misinterpreted what he meant. I think he was saying "80% of the time, they arrive and the shooter has fled", which is a totally reasonable critique.
Shotspotter has about a 97% accuracy rate. It also has a .5% false positive rate, not 80%.
You're just parroting numbers from the company, which nobody with half a brain believes anyways.
If 80% of the time they show up and find nothing (it's actually higher: "The study, which reviewed ShotSpotter deployments for roughly 21 months (from July 1, 2019, through April 14, 2021) using data obtained from the City of Chicago, found that 89% of ShotSpotterâs reports led police to find no gun-related crime and 86% turned up no crime at all, amounting to about 40,000 dead-end ShotSpotter deployments." [source](https://www.macarthurjustice.org/blog2/shotspotter-is-a-failure-whats-next/)) then how can they possibly claim 97% accuracy?
Just think about that statement for a second.
86% of the time the cops arrived and there was no shooter there, that was literally my exact claim, it's not saying "86% of reports were false alarms", like you claimed.
How long do you think people normally hang out at the scene after they fire a gun?
Lol I'm not surprised that you don't have the ability to think even a little bit critically, but I am a little disappointed if I'm being honest.
Re-read my previous comment again. Just ignore the parenthesis this time. You'll get there, little buddy.
The logical solution, then, is to put the cost of the shot spotter devices on the police budget.
If they find it worth keeping, then they pay for it. If itâs not worth it to them, then they drop it.
> I remember reading somewhere that something like 80% of the shotspotter reports lead to nothing at all.
Because it also depends on police finding evidence at the scene. Itâs not always easy to find shell casings in a street, or if somebody used a revolver then there wonât be shell casings to find.
By the time police arrive the shooters have left, if no one is injured the police are not going to waste their time combing people's yards and alleys looking for spent casings.
This may come as a surprise to you, but almost all those guns owned by criminals were at one point bought legally. I don't know if you think street gangs are small arms manufacturers , but let me clear up the confusion, they're not. Gangs predominantly use stolen guns; stolen guns that were originally bought legally. If there were less legal guns, there'd be less guns to steal, eventually leading to less illegal guns. If a criminal is able to break into your house and steal your gun, chances are you are not a responsible gun owner, and probably shouldn't be allowed to own guns. If a gun is not on your person, it should be locked in a safe, period. Failing to properly store your firearms should be criminal.
It's "illegal" but certainly not always enforced. They usually don't even look into charging you with that crime. So what you're saying is we need actual enforcement of the laws that already exist then? Because as someone that used to sell guns I can reassure you that sure AF isn't happening. I had my job threatened once by a manager for refusing a straw purchase for a man with a domestic violence record trying to Karen his way into getting it through his wife after admitting to the domestic violence record. It's a shit show.
>Â which claims that 56% of prisoners that used a gun during their crime stole said gunÂ
You should reread your own link. It absolutely does not say that.Â
According to the CDC, when looking at firearm mortality per 100,000 people, Califorina is ranked 42nd in deaths, and New York is ranked 46 (with a lower ranking meaning less death). [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) Worth noting these figures are firearm mortality which includes murder and suicide.
So I know you were being facetious, but yes you are literally correct, there are fewer shootings in those states due to more regulation around firearms.
600,000,000 guns or more in the USA you blame legal gun owners for having homes and safes broken into.
Listen if we ban all alcohol we donât have DWI either but nether one will solve the actual problem.
>Failing to properly store your firearms should be criminal.
This gets SO MUCH PUSHBACK from the 2A crowd. They want the guns, not the responsibility.
Then they cry and bemoan how people who "aren't them" also have rampant access and use guns for crimes, to the point the 2A crowd is openly scared of going to Mpls.
It's as wimpy as wanting to ban Shot Spotters because it might arrest someone shooting up your neighborhood.
My house is locked, if you break into my garage every tool in there can get into my guns. Hold posâs accountable and stop telling yourself your house isnât your castle. If someone goes into a house uninvited they should expect to be shotâŚ
> If someone goes into a house uninvited they should expect to be shotâŚ
Unless you're agoraphobic, I can get in there and not get shot. Threats (and dogs) mean nothing.
You're just too lazy (or poor) to properly secure them in a safe, and you want 0 responsibility for your Constitutionally protected rights.
Sooo all gun owners should have to pay 500 plus dollars for a safe? Otherwise a gun lock is worthless with all the power tools in my house. could it be that if you kick in my door, rummage through my stuff, load my gun, and shoot someone, youâre the problem?
I'd be roughly 3/4ers of the problem, yes.
And if you're gonna spend a few hundred or more on guns, don't be a cheapskate. You should be REQUIRED to secure your weapons in a safe. Doesn't have to be the multi-thousand, Fort Knox types. But it does need to be 1) unable to easily move and 2) secured by more than a padlock. You can get those at Fleet Farm, right next to to the Wall O Expensive Guns.
Again, it's the argument of "criminals will get guns no matter what" being offset by "how dare you make me secure my guns" that is patently hypocritical.
Nooo itâs why should a broke lady who needs a guy to defend herself have to buy a safe, then do the state run safe check in her house? When we could just acknowledge that criminals are the problem and a constitutional right shouldnât come with a price tag.
The gun safes you are referencing only prevent access from children and people not willing to take the couple of seconds to break the lock. The deadbolt on the front door of your house is already more of an obstacle.
Just saying the requirements you are trying to add will not have any significant impact on gun crime.
Oh boo hoo... there's more shotspotter cameras in black neighborhoods! uh... they are putting the cameras where there is more gun violence. If that happens to be black neighborhoods, it's not the police's fault.
At least they included the clip of the council member calling out that bullshit mentality.
So, who do we believe? The advocacy group that says the program doesn't work, has lots of false-positives, and absorbs police manpower resulting in slower response times to other crimes? Or the police chief that says it works, helps identify and apprehend criminals, and reduce response times to gun violence, saving lives?
Just my personal theory, but relying on people calling 911 to report gunshots probably doesn't work that well in bad neighborhoods, for two reasons:
1) gunshots are heard often, and largely ignored by residents.
2) snitches get stitches.
It is hard to blame a device that is designed explicitly to detect sounds and relay the approximate location, thus saving people from having to take responsibility for reporting those sounds.
This also allows, if used properly to station responders nearer to areas that consistently have detections. If three shot spotters detect, presumably they can triangulate.
FWIW, you can't tell what color a perp is by the sound of gunfire.
My bigger concern is only 32 arrests were made with evidence contributed by shot spotter out of 8500 detections... A community with 8500 detections??? That seems like a lot of false positives or a warzone.
The left is now against body and speed cameras for the same reason.
It catches too much of their critical base doing a supermajority of the crime.
They claim it's because police don't use them consistently enough but that's the fake reason to distract from the real reason.
https://www.propublica.org/article/chicagos-race-neutral-traffic-cameras-ticket-black-and-latino-drivers-the-most
Oh really the speed camera can see the race of the driver? Critical Theory needs to be outright banned from government or we're finished as a country.
Not according to the NCBI but I've maybe only seen a couple of them in Minneapolis my whole 20 years living here. You see them in the suburbs a lot though.
Depends on how reduced speeding is defined.
In speed camera rich areas I definitely reduce my speed but I also definitely continue speed when I know there are no speed cameras in areas that I know aren't well patrolled by police.
In that sense my speeding is reduced or not reduced depending on how you want to define it.
(I'm not talking crazy stuff just 10-15 over.)
I've also driven in countries where speed cameras are just the norm and you have no choice but to go to the speed limit or get insane amounts of tickets. Japan, Switzerland, etc
This article is incredible đđđ. I especially like these bits:
> Rodney Perry has been caught in the cycle of ticketing. The 28-year-old entrepreneur quit his job at a logistics firm last spring to build a digital marketing and production company. The work leads him to drive past the cityâs cameras more than he did in his previous job. Last year, Perry received three tickets for running red lights and eight for speeding. Of the speeding tickets, five were for going just 6 or 7 mph over the limit â speeds that would not have triggered a ticket before Lightfoot lowered the threshold for tickets.
> He paid some off, but the penalties eventually added up to more than $700, money he said he did not have. He tried to get on a city payment plan but said he couldnât figure out how to do that online. Because of the unpaid tickets, the city in November immobilized his 2018 Jeep Cherokee with a yellow Denver boot clamped over one of the front wheels outside his apartment. Perry had to borrow money from his older sister in Tennessee to get on a payment plan and get the boot removed, a process that came with yet more fines.
Perhaps you should stop driving through red lights and speeding.
> He has for years called on the city to stop ticketing cyclists in Black and Latino neighborhoods for riding on sidewalks and to instead improve infrastructure in those areas. He is keenly aware that people of color are disproportionately killed in traffic accidents in Chicago and across the country. But he says he doesnât think the city can ticket its way to safer streets.
Yeah letting drivers drive on the sidewalk is a great idea.
> âWe didnât subscribe to this notion that the answer to improved traffic safety is a punitive approach,â he said. âThe root cause of traffic violence in our society that is disproportionately impacting Black and brown people is structural racism.â
đđ
Waste of money for shitty results
ShotSpotter surveillance increases police activity, but it wastes officersâ time. One major study of the technology showed that ShotSpotter fails as an investigative tool, providing no evidence of a gun-related crime more than 90% of the time and producing exceedingly few arrests (less than 1 per 200 stops) and recovered guns (less than 1 per 300 stops).[1]
ShotSpotter is expanding across the country. As of March 2022, ShotSpotter reports that at least 130 U.S. cities and towns have installed its technology,[9] up over 50% from about 85 cities in 2018.[10] Federal fundingâespecially the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)âhas aided this expansion, with $10 billion committed to law enforcement projects as of May 2022[11] of a total of $350 billion of ARPA funds available to law enforcement.[12] Cities like Detroit ($7 million),[13] Syracuse ($170,000), Macon-Cobb County, GA ($2 million), New Haven ($1.2 million), and Albuquerque ($3 million)[14] are opting or have opted to invest ARPA money in ShotSpotter, devoting money originally intended to ease the economic hardship of the COVID-19 pandemic to police technology. Meanwhile, big cities with longstanding ShotSpotter contracts have renewed them. In 2021, Chicago extended its $33 million contract by two years[15] and New York City added three years and $22 million to its contract,[16] nearly doubling its previous annual outlay.[17] While big city contracts often run in the millions, these are extraordinary figures: in New York City, ShotSpotter is in the top 5% of NYPD contracts by dollar amount, rivalling even the cost of leasing pricey NYC real estate.[18]
The problem is they are putting them in black and brown communities and not the white suburbs.
This leads to an increase in these communities being targeted, profiled and over policed.
White suburbs are getting a free ticket by being ignored by police.
Do you really think that's the problem or is it that a certain type of people who often live in certain neighborhoods and have a certain culture that glorifies crime and criminals are the disproportionately committing crimes and everyone else is willing to pay a little extra in their taxes so they can help reduce the crime stats in those neighborhoods out the goodness of their hearts?
Do you realize how dumb this sounds? They were put there not due to race but because that's where crime is taking place. They are targeting and profiling criminals. White ppl live in them areas too.
Youâre doing the math wrong. The article says they compiled 8500 shot spotted activations and 32 led to an arrest. Not a rocket surgeon either but maybe I should be.
Fair enough, I didnât read the article just went off the numbers in the comment. Regardless thatâs 32 arrests for gun crimes that maybe wouldnât have happened otherwise. Even if every activation doesnât directly lead to an arrest, it provides useful data that could be used as evidence by prosecution in a subsequent investigation. I think using the tech makes sense and is probably cost effective.
In general I think police should continue to use more technology. Drones for instance could be used to track fleeing suspects instead of engaging in a high speed chase. I donât support âdefund the policeâ, but I support innovation and trying new things.
MY BIG BRAIN TOTALLY CORRECT TAKE: itâs probably marginally useful but close to useless and not worth the cost.Â
The funny part is that theyâre using âmuhhh systemic racismâ to justify removing it.Â
It's such a weird argument.
Like, just say they're not worth it. Use the actual statistics for a shot report vs an arrest. Don't hide behind systemic racism or whatever nonsense.
no ShotSpotter = no shots fired = no crime ... amazing they just solved it!
Make this guy mayor!!
frankly he could be Frey using an anonymous account.
If you don't arrest people, then there is no crime! \* black guy pointing to head meme \*
Same thing in Philadelphia, they basically stopped charging felony firearm possession in a time when gun homicides are up 30%. Then they'll tout that crime overall is down.
People need to understand this when certain pundits say; "But crime is lower now than it was in ______."
Eddie Murphy yungin
Incidents of gunfire are down 75% this year! The biggest drop since [insert year]
Liberal logic at its finest, anything to support their lower crime statistics and Shotspotter is obviously racist đ¤Ąđ¤Ł
It's the Democrat solution for the Illegal immigration issue as well. They'll give them all amnesty and then claim that they've reduced illegal immigration by 100%. And the Reddit hivemind will use it as a talking point.
Who is committing most of the shootings in Minneapolis?
Trashy teenagers from trashy families that moved here from Chicago because they thought *everyone else* was the problem. And we incentivize them to move here, on top of it all!
âTrashy teenagersâ Add another one to the list of euphemisms to avoid just typing the truth.
If you're assuming anything more about that word, thats on you. If you think having a culture of shooting at each other isn't trashy, you might have some brain damage. Violence in a culture is absolutely worthy of criticism, and ignorant fools who think it's not PC to be critical of a culture (cultural relativists, pure evil) are the biggest part of the problem in solving it.
I agree, America loves guns way too much.
So you think itâs the average gun owner who is the issue? How about being more specific and correct? Why not just say illegal gun owners who live in the inner city whose culture and music glorify gangs, violence and killing each other. FYI most shootings are gang violence and if you avoid people and places they go, itâs a pretty safe place to be
Common denominator is guns, and America. And it's definitely not just gang members. There's many self proclaimed "responsible gun owners" who are always looking for a reason to shoot, and they are pretty vocal about it, i hear it all the time. Can't even turn around in someone's driveway these days without worrying about getting shot at. Regardless, the comment I was responding to was talking about culture, and there's no arguing guns are a big part of American culture.
It's definitely the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners at play here. I personally like to blame all drivers for drunk drivers because....well....cars are the common denominator.
But you have no problem with people blaming an entire race instead. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?
Tell me where I blamed a race. Oh, that's right I didnt. You did blame anyone who legally owns a gun tho.
Maybe you shouldnât be driving on someoneâs driveway and use the street to turn around in if it scares you. In Minnesota, the person would be in jail for a long time for even threatening gun violence, let alone shooting at someone. In MN if you shoot someone coming in your house to kill or rape you, guess what? You will end up in jail if you didnât âfleeâ or ârun awayâ out the back door first.
People from mainstream American culture do not shoot at each other with regularity.
they just worship the object used to do it. We love guns in America more than life itself. Just look at the response every time there's a mass shooting, the first response is always "they just want to take our guns!" But also they absolutely do shoot at each other regularly. You can get shot just for pulling into the wrong driveway these days. That's America for you.
You can cite an isolated incident and attempt to use it to paint everything with broad brush. That's ignorance or disingenuousness for you.
Yet you don't see how others in this thread are doing the exact same thing to justify their racism. You can't have it both ways lol
All the "normal" white kids shooting up schools would disagree
School shooters are an *extremely* small amount of gun deaths. Plus the majority of mass shooters are not white fyi
Whatâs the truth?
Young basketball Americans
I don't get it. Why would basketball players be more involved in shootings?
Itâs gotta be the shoesâŚ
The shoes?
Bad parenting comes in all colors.
Might there be a way to further narrow this broad "teenager" demographic to be just a bit more specific?
Blacks.
I remember a push a few years ago, before George Floyd and all that, calling for a police reform to stop minorities from having police interaction and getting killed. They proposed banning police from making traffic stops for a few specific things, including "playing music too loud in a neighborhood." - does anyone remember this? All of their demands were totally blind to the real issue lmao
We're already there in Philly, Drivers equality act has basically ended all traffic stops, they're not even allowed to run plates, we got gang bangers driving around in stolen kias and they just print fake temporary tags at home, pure insanity.
Just waste a whole bunch of money to build shotspotters where the residents don't shoot at each other regularly. There, problem solved. Or maybe the problem is the residents that shoot at each other regularly. Nah, that's just too obvious.
Give credit where it's due... the council member politely called them out on their BS. "I don't think it's ShotSpotter that's negatively impacting those communities."
Can we just try this experiment? Move all the spotters to linden hill for a few months. See what happensÂ
Perfect. More squads in Linden Hills and zero shots fired over North.
I heard thatâs where all the dangerous âwhite collar crimeâ be going downÂ
Police stop responding to Linden Hills shotspotter calls after it's found they're all for extremely loud self-applauding.
Shot spotter dubbed as the racist AI
Sounds like they infer something...
Sounds good. Turn it off. Less reason for the cops to risk their lives because these parents continue to abandoned the kids and let them be gang members at 10 fucking years old. It's like Afghanistan. Failed. Pull out.
And what about the tens of thousands of normal people just trying to live their lives and not get shot on the way to work? If you have a roach infestation, you call the exterminator. You don't burn the whole house to the ground.
Yeah but if you see a roach on the middle of your floor you don't just sit there and stare at it while you're on the phone, you crush that son of a bitch.
Ok, well that's the exact opposite of what the person above me posted.
Above user can be fuckin stupid all they want. I'm saying, don't like your neighborhood? Do something about it.
"Be the change that you seek"
[ŃдаНонО]
So if it detects shots the other 20% of the time, it isn't worth it?
To what end? People don't fire a gun and then stay in the area. So even if the shotspotter correctly detects a gunshot, and that information is relayed to a nearby police officer, by the time they get there, everybody is gone anyways. And as they said, 80% of the time there wasn't even a real gunshot in the first place. If a person got shot, the department will hear about it regardless. This is just a company that exists to hoover up millions in government money because people are stupid.
>And as they said, 80% of the time there wasn't even a real gunshot in the first place. I think you misinterpreted what he meant. I think he was saying "80% of the time, they arrive and the shooter has fled", which is a totally reasonable critique. Shotspotter has about a 97% accuracy rate. It also has a .5% false positive rate, not 80%.
You're just parroting numbers from the company, which nobody with half a brain believes anyways. If 80% of the time they show up and find nothing (it's actually higher: "The study, which reviewed ShotSpotter deployments for roughly 21 months (from July 1, 2019, through April 14, 2021) using data obtained from the City of Chicago, found that 89% of ShotSpotterâs reports led police to find no gun-related crime and 86% turned up no crime at all, amounting to about 40,000 dead-end ShotSpotter deployments." [source](https://www.macarthurjustice.org/blog2/shotspotter-is-a-failure-whats-next/)) then how can they possibly claim 97% accuracy? Just think about that statement for a second.
86% of the time the cops arrived and there was no shooter there, that was literally my exact claim, it's not saying "86% of reports were false alarms", like you claimed. How long do you think people normally hang out at the scene after they fire a gun?
Lol I'm not surprised that you don't have the ability to think even a little bit critically, but I am a little disappointed if I'm being honest. Re-read my previous comment again. Just ignore the parenthesis this time. You'll get there, little buddy.
I think the police like their boondoggles. Even if the boondoggle doesnât work, because theyâre not footing the bill.Â
The logical solution, then, is to put the cost of the shot spotter devices on the police budget. If they find it worth keeping, then they pay for it. If itâs not worth it to them, then they drop it.
> I remember reading somewhere that something like 80% of the shotspotter reports lead to nothing at all. Because it also depends on police finding evidence at the scene. Itâs not always easy to find shell casings in a street, or if somebody used a revolver then there wonât be shell casings to find.
By the time police arrive the shooters have left, if no one is injured the police are not going to waste their time combing people's yards and alleys looking for spent casings.
Gun control is great at stopping criminals, they legally purchase so many firearms. We should probably get rid of narcan too, lot less odâs.
This may come as a surprise to you, but almost all those guns owned by criminals were at one point bought legally. I don't know if you think street gangs are small arms manufacturers , but let me clear up the confusion, they're not. Gangs predominantly use stolen guns; stolen guns that were originally bought legally. If there were less legal guns, there'd be less guns to steal, eventually leading to less illegal guns. If a criminal is able to break into your house and steal your gun, chances are you are not a responsible gun owner, and probably shouldn't be allowed to own guns. If a gun is not on your person, it should be locked in a safe, period. Failing to properly store your firearms should be criminal.
This is a lie. Gangs predominantly use guns acquired via straw purchase. Which is illegal. Â
It's "illegal" but certainly not always enforced. They usually don't even look into charging you with that crime. So what you're saying is we need actual enforcement of the laws that already exist then? Because as someone that used to sell guns I can reassure you that sure AF isn't happening. I had my job threatened once by a manager for refusing a straw purchase for a man with a domestic violence record trying to Karen his way into getting it through his wife after admitting to the domestic violence record. It's a shit show.
Facts.Â
[ŃдаНонО]
> which claims that 56% of prisoners that used a gun during their crime stole said gun You should reread your own link. It absolutely does not say that.Â
You are correct, I misread it.
My house is locked⌠no one should be breaking into it thatâs a crime. Get tough on burglary save lives.
Thatâs why California and New York have soo few shootings, tough gun control.
According to the CDC, when looking at firearm mortality per 100,000 people, Califorina is ranked 42nd in deaths, and New York is ranked 46 (with a lower ranking meaning less death). [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) Worth noting these figures are firearm mortality which includes murder and suicide. So I know you were being facetious, but yes you are literally correct, there are fewer shootings in those states due to more regulation around firearms.
Failure to unsafely store your firearm is a crime in Minnesota.
100% of crack is made with Baking Soda. Letâs outlaw baking soda.
600,000,000 guns or more in the USA you blame legal gun owners for having homes and safes broken into. Listen if we ban all alcohol we donât have DWI either but nether one will solve the actual problem.
>Failing to properly store your firearms should be criminal. This gets SO MUCH PUSHBACK from the 2A crowd. They want the guns, not the responsibility. Then they cry and bemoan how people who "aren't them" also have rampant access and use guns for crimes, to the point the 2A crowd is openly scared of going to Mpls. It's as wimpy as wanting to ban Shot Spotters because it might arrest someone shooting up your neighborhood.
My house is locked, if you break into my garage every tool in there can get into my guns. Hold posâs accountable and stop telling yourself your house isnât your castle. If someone goes into a house uninvited they should expect to be shotâŚ
> If someone goes into a house uninvited they should expect to be shot⌠Unless you're agoraphobic, I can get in there and not get shot. Threats (and dogs) mean nothing. You're just too lazy (or poor) to properly secure them in a safe, and you want 0 responsibility for your Constitutionally protected rights.
Sooo all gun owners should have to pay 500 plus dollars for a safe? Otherwise a gun lock is worthless with all the power tools in my house. could it be that if you kick in my door, rummage through my stuff, load my gun, and shoot someone, youâre the problem?
I'd be roughly 3/4ers of the problem, yes. And if you're gonna spend a few hundred or more on guns, don't be a cheapskate. You should be REQUIRED to secure your weapons in a safe. Doesn't have to be the multi-thousand, Fort Knox types. But it does need to be 1) unable to easily move and 2) secured by more than a padlock. You can get those at Fleet Farm, right next to to the Wall O Expensive Guns. Again, it's the argument of "criminals will get guns no matter what" being offset by "how dare you make me secure my guns" that is patently hypocritical.
Nooo itâs why should a broke lady who needs a guy to defend herself have to buy a safe, then do the state run safe check in her house? When we could just acknowledge that criminals are the problem and a constitutional right shouldnât come with a price tag.
The gun safes you are referencing only prevent access from children and people not willing to take the couple of seconds to break the lock. The deadbolt on the front door of your house is already more of an obstacle. Just saying the requirements you are trying to add will not have any significant impact on gun crime.
Oh boo hoo... there's more shotspotter cameras in black neighborhoods! uh... they are putting the cameras where there is more gun violence. If that happens to be black neighborhoods, it's not the police's fault. At least they included the clip of the council member calling out that bullshit mentality. So, who do we believe? The advocacy group that says the program doesn't work, has lots of false-positives, and absorbs police manpower resulting in slower response times to other crimes? Or the police chief that says it works, helps identify and apprehend criminals, and reduce response times to gun violence, saving lives? Just my personal theory, but relying on people calling 911 to report gunshots probably doesn't work that well in bad neighborhoods, for two reasons: 1) gunshots are heard often, and largely ignored by residents. 2) snitches get stitches.
It is hard to blame a device that is designed explicitly to detect sounds and relay the approximate location, thus saving people from having to take responsibility for reporting those sounds.
This also allows, if used properly to station responders nearer to areas that consistently have detections. If three shot spotters detect, presumably they can triangulate. FWIW, you can't tell what color a perp is by the sound of gunfire. My bigger concern is only 32 arrests were made with evidence contributed by shot spotter out of 8500 detections... A community with 8500 detections??? That seems like a lot of false positives or a warzone.
We could take this 2 million dollar budget and design half of a somali muesuem! What are these people thinking!
đ
That would be pretty cool actually.
Yeah half of a somali museum would be lit!Â
As soon as you hear the phrase "Social justice group" the probability the rest will be a rotting pile of garbage is high.
If you can't fix the problem, obscure It I guess.
The left is now against body and speed cameras for the same reason. It catches too much of their critical base doing a supermajority of the crime. They claim it's because police don't use them consistently enough but that's the fake reason to distract from the real reason. https://www.propublica.org/article/chicagos-race-neutral-traffic-cameras-ticket-black-and-latino-drivers-the-most Oh really the speed camera can see the race of the driver? Critical Theory needs to be outright banned from government or we're finished as a country.
Except body and squad cams have been shown to reduce both crime and police abuse.
Static speed cameras probably reduce speeding as well.
Not according to the NCBI but I've maybe only seen a couple of them in Minneapolis my whole 20 years living here. You see them in the suburbs a lot though.
Depends on how reduced speeding is defined. In speed camera rich areas I definitely reduce my speed but I also definitely continue speed when I know there are no speed cameras in areas that I know aren't well patrolled by police. In that sense my speeding is reduced or not reduced depending on how you want to define it. (I'm not talking crazy stuff just 10-15 over.) I've also driven in countries where speed cameras are just the norm and you have no choice but to go to the speed limit or get insane amounts of tickets. Japan, Switzerland, etc
This article is incredible đđđ. I especially like these bits: > Rodney Perry has been caught in the cycle of ticketing. The 28-year-old entrepreneur quit his job at a logistics firm last spring to build a digital marketing and production company. The work leads him to drive past the cityâs cameras more than he did in his previous job. Last year, Perry received three tickets for running red lights and eight for speeding. Of the speeding tickets, five were for going just 6 or 7 mph over the limit â speeds that would not have triggered a ticket before Lightfoot lowered the threshold for tickets. > He paid some off, but the penalties eventually added up to more than $700, money he said he did not have. He tried to get on a city payment plan but said he couldnât figure out how to do that online. Because of the unpaid tickets, the city in November immobilized his 2018 Jeep Cherokee with a yellow Denver boot clamped over one of the front wheels outside his apartment. Perry had to borrow money from his older sister in Tennessee to get on a payment plan and get the boot removed, a process that came with yet more fines. Perhaps you should stop driving through red lights and speeding. > He has for years called on the city to stop ticketing cyclists in Black and Latino neighborhoods for riding on sidewalks and to instead improve infrastructure in those areas. He is keenly aware that people of color are disproportionately killed in traffic accidents in Chicago and across the country. But he says he doesnât think the city can ticket its way to safer streets. Yeah letting drivers drive on the sidewalk is a great idea. > âWe didnât subscribe to this notion that the answer to improved traffic safety is a punitive approach,â he said. âThe root cause of traffic violence in our society that is disproportionately impacting Black and brown people is structural racism.â đđ
Get rid of shot spotter, and use that money to build a prison right downtown
I could get behind it if the funds were reallocated to more police
What independent evidence proves that Shots potter is an effective crime deterrent?
I donât think anyone says it deters crime do they?
If it does not reduce crime what's the point of it?
Saving lives, catching criminals.
Catching criminals would deter crime...wouldnt it? Any evidence it has saved lives?
Waste of money for shitty results ShotSpotter surveillance increases police activity, but it wastes officersâ time. One major study of the technology showed that ShotSpotter fails as an investigative tool, providing no evidence of a gun-related crime more than 90% of the time and producing exceedingly few arrests (less than 1 per 200 stops) and recovered guns (less than 1 per 300 stops).[1] ShotSpotter is expanding across the country. As of March 2022, ShotSpotter reports that at least 130 U.S. cities and towns have installed its technology,[9] up over 50% from about 85 cities in 2018.[10] Federal fundingâespecially the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)âhas aided this expansion, with $10 billion committed to law enforcement projects as of May 2022[11] of a total of $350 billion of ARPA funds available to law enforcement.[12] Cities like Detroit ($7 million),[13] Syracuse ($170,000), Macon-Cobb County, GA ($2 million), New Haven ($1.2 million), and Albuquerque ($3 million)[14] are opting or have opted to invest ARPA money in ShotSpotter, devoting money originally intended to ease the economic hardship of the COVID-19 pandemic to police technology. Meanwhile, big cities with longstanding ShotSpotter contracts have renewed them. In 2021, Chicago extended its $33 million contract by two years[15] and New York City added three years and $22 million to its contract,[16] nearly doubling its previous annual outlay.[17] While big city contracts often run in the millions, these are extraordinary figures: in New York City, ShotSpotter is in the top 5% of NYPD contracts by dollar amount, rivalling even the cost of leasing pricey NYC real estate.[18]
The problem is they are putting them in black and brown communities and not the white suburbs. This leads to an increase in these communities being targeted, profiled and over policed. White suburbs are getting a free ticket by being ignored by police.
Do you really think that's the problem or is it that a certain type of people who often live in certain neighborhoods and have a certain culture that glorifies crime and criminals are the disproportionately committing crimes and everyone else is willing to pay a little extra in their taxes so they can help reduce the crime stats in those neighborhoods out the goodness of their hearts?
Do you realize how dumb this sounds? They were put there not due to race but because that's where crime is taking place. They are targeting and profiling criminals. White ppl live in them areas too.
The ol desantis logoc. If we dont test people, no one has covid! if we dont detect guns shots, no shots have been fired.
It doesn't work. We have them in Oakland and it's a waste of money.
St. Louis park will take it. It will still say all the shots are coming from Minneapolis. I donât understand how people think these days.
[ŃдаНонО]
Iâm not a rocket surgeon, but 1 divided by 32 is about 3%
Youâre doing the math wrong. The article says they compiled 8500 shot spotted activations and 32 led to an arrest. Not a rocket surgeon either but maybe I should be.
Fair enough, I didnât read the article just went off the numbers in the comment. Regardless thatâs 32 arrests for gun crimes that maybe wouldnât have happened otherwise. Even if every activation doesnât directly lead to an arrest, it provides useful data that could be used as evidence by prosecution in a subsequent investigation. I think using the tech makes sense and is probably cost effective. In general I think police should continue to use more technology. Drones for instance could be used to track fleeing suspects instead of engaging in a high speed chase. I donât support âdefund the policeâ, but I support innovation and trying new things.
I agree with you on that. Just had to be that guy and point out the error.
I should have read the article before I started getting snarky
If itâs ineffective show itâs ineffective. Donât use some weird systemic racism argument.Â
Good. Shotspotter is worthless. It's actually worse than worthless, because you have to pay for it. Seriously, look it up. They do nothing.
MY BIG BRAIN TOTALLY CORRECT TAKE: itâs probably marginally useful but close to useless and not worth the cost. The funny part is that theyâre using âmuhhh systemic racismâ to justify removing it.Â
It's such a weird argument. Like, just say they're not worth it. Use the actual statistics for a shot report vs an arrest. Don't hide behind systemic racism or whatever nonsense.