Technologies to counter gun violence..

I have done some research about companies / technologies who's sole objective is to fight gun violence either proactively or reactively and found 2 companies (so far) that are into this business. Any OG'ers know of any others and if so, can you post your thoughts on them?

1) ShotSpotter Inc. (SSTI:US): This company has technology that can pin point the location of gun shots after the fact to help cops zero in on where a perp might be
2) Patriot One Technologies Inc (PTOTF:US): This company has created a "black box" of sorts that can be installed in walls, door entrances, etc and using microwave frequencies, can scan and detect guns, knives, bombs, etc with a 95% accuracy rating (compared to 70% with current metal detectors).
3) Thruvision Group PLC (DIGTF U.S.: OTC) - does similar to what Patriot does - detecting concealed weapons, explosives and contraband hidden under peoples’ clothing in high-throughput environments

1) is used in Chicago.

Let that sink in for a minute

1) Vote out liberals

PatK - 


1) is used in Chicago.



Let that sink in for a minute


Yup - found out about this company about 2 weeks ago (I am heavily invested in #2 which is how I found it). SSTI has made additional contracts with other cities as of late. Looks interesting but the stock run-up has been exponential (up 34% in August alone I believe)..

logic672 - 

1) Vote out liberals


That won't happen nor will the 2nd amendment disappear thus the thread / discussion..

PatK - 


1) is used in Chicago.



Let that sink in for a minute



I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.

Option 3 sounds good

ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 


1) is used in Chicago.



Let that sink in for a minute



I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.


Like I posted, proactive and reactive technologies. #1 is reactive that tries to minimize further gun violence after the fact along with help catching the perp whereas #2 and #3 are proactive (stop gun violence before it happens)..

Graduate1 - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 


1) is used in Chicago.



Let that sink in for a minute



I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.


Like I posted, proactive and reactive technologies. #1 is reactive that tries to minimize further gun violence after the fact along with help catching the perp whereas #2 and #3 are proactive (stop gun violence before it happens)..


Fair enough.

In Baltimore they have begun putting Running Man style collars on Father's so they can't abandon their children. If they are not within 5' of their children for 12 hours a day, their head explodes.

The tech was invented in Israel.

Munk
©

ksacs revenge - 
Graduate1 - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 


1) is used in Chicago.



Let that sink in for a minute



I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.


Like I posted, proactive and reactive technologies. #1 is reactive that tries to minimize further gun violence after the fact along with help catching the perp whereas #2 and #3 are proactive (stop gun violence before it happens)..


Fair enough.



And look at the number of shootings in Chicago that are unsolved.



They haven't put a dent on those numbers.



 

PatK - 
ksacs revenge - 
Graduate1 - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 


1) is used in Chicago.



Let that sink in for a minute



I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.


Like I posted, proactive and reactive technologies. #1 is reactive that tries to minimize further gun violence after the fact along with help catching the perp whereas #2 and #3 are proactive (stop gun violence before it happens)..


Fair enough.



And look at the number of shootings in Chicago that are unsolved.



They haven't put a dent on those numbers.



 



Where are the numbers? Or maybe you could just tell us how often that technology has been used and whether it may have prevented further gun violence in those cases. I'd be interested to know.

ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 
ksacs revenge - 
Graduate1 - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 


1) is used in Chicago.



Let that sink in for a minute



I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.


Like I posted, proactive and reactive technologies. #1 is reactive that tries to minimize further gun violence after the fact along with help catching the perp whereas #2 and #3 are proactive (stop gun violence before it happens)..


Fair enough.



And look at the number of shootings in Chicago that are unsolved.



They haven't put a dent on those numbers.



 



Where are the numbers? Or maybe you could just tell us how often that technology has been used and whether it may have prevented further gun violence in those cases. I'd be interested to know.



It's hard to tell because there has been almost no independent research, other than claims by the CPD and the manufacturer of their effectiveness.



Shootings are down, but the number that are unsolved remains the same (around 5%). There is speculation that the system has just shifted the locations of shootings from areas with the system to neighboring areas without them.



Critics think the $23 million it's going to cost the city the next three years ($18 million has been spent  the last two years) would be better off spent on other programs.

ARM MORE PEOPLE..............ITS THAT SIMPLE. 

PatK - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 
ksacs revenge - 
Graduate1 - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 


1) is used in Chicago.



Let that sink in for a minute



I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.


Like I posted, proactive and reactive technologies. #1 is reactive that tries to minimize further gun violence after the fact along with help catching the perp whereas #2 and #3 are proactive (stop gun violence before it happens)..


Fair enough.



And look at the number of shootings in Chicago that are unsolved.



They haven't put a dent on those numbers.



 



Where are the numbers? Or maybe you could just tell us how often that technology has been used and whether it may have prevented further gun violence in those cases. I'd be interested to know.



It's hard to tell because there has been almost no independent research, other than claims by the CPD and the manufacturer of their effectiveness.



Shootings are down, but the number that are unsolved remains the same (around 5%). There is speculation that the system has just shifted the locations of shootings from areas with the system to neighboring areas without them.



Critics think the $23 million it's going to cost the city the next three years ($18 million has been spent  the last two years) would be better off spent on other programs.


3% is a low number. So low I'm almost suspicious.

I had similar thoughts to what the philosophy of use for advanced gun detectors would be, just with conventional metal detectors and random checkpoints.

The point of any of these technologies and their use isn't to stop a specific shooting. It's to locate members of the exact criminal element that commits these crimes, and to lock up as many of them as possible.

What I'd really like to know is what percent of arrests for firearms discharge in the areas with the gunshot detector involve the use of the detector vs a 911 call. Also the total cost for fielding the unit vs the area it covers, and what the performance caveats are for different terrain.

Sorry, 5%, not 3% (sounds more believable)

PatK - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 
ksacs revenge - 
Graduate1 - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 

1) is used in Chicago.

Let that sink in for a minute


I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.


Like I posted, proactive and reactive technologies. #1 is reactive that tries to minimize further gun violence after the fact along with help catching the perp whereas #2 and #3 are proactive (stop gun violence before it happens)..

Fair enough.


And look at the number of shootings in Chicago that are unsolved.

They haven't put a dent on those numbers.

 


Where are the numbers? Or maybe you could just tell us how often that technology has been used and whether it may have prevented further gun violence in those cases. I'd be interested to know.


It's hard to tell because there has been almost no independent research, other than claims by the CPD and the manufacturer of their effectiveness.

Shootings are down, but the number that are unsolved remains the same (around 5%). There is speculation that the system has just shifted the locations of shootings from areas with the system to neighboring areas without them.

Critics think the $23 million it's going to cost the city the next three years ($18 million has been spent  the last two years) would be better off spent on other programs.

 

Thanks, even though you implied there were some numbers to look at. I'm suspicious the results of this tech will have much impact. Deterents don't work, so at best you catch a guy who might kill again.

 

ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 
ksacs revenge - 
Graduate1 - 
ksacs revenge - 
PatK - 

1) is used in Chicago.

Let that sink in for a minute


I'm not sure how #1 is suppose to counter gun violence. It only has a use after gun violence has occurred.


Like I posted, proactive and reactive technologies. #1 is reactive that tries to minimize further gun violence after the fact along with help catching the perp whereas #2 and #3 are proactive (stop gun violence before it happens)..

Fair enough.


And look at the number of shootings in Chicago that are unsolved.

They haven't put a dent on those numbers.

 


Where are the numbers? Or maybe you could just tell us how often that technology has been used and whether it may have prevented further gun violence in those cases. I'd be interested to know.


It's hard to tell because there has been almost no independent research, other than claims by the CPD and the manufacturer of their effectiveness.

Shootings are down, but the number that are unsolved remains the same (around 5%). There is speculation that the system has just shifted the locations of shootings from areas with the system to neighboring areas without them.

Critics think the $23 million it's going to cost the city the next three years ($18 million has been spent  the last two years) would be better off spent on other programs.

 

Thanks, even though you implied there were some numbers to look at. I'm suspicious the results of this tech will have much impact. Deterents don't work, so at best you catch a guy who might kill again.

 


 Englewood district had shootings drop something like 40% according to police stats.

You'd expect that to have a much bigger impact on the overall shootings, since that's one of the worst areas.

 

 

ringworm - Sorry, 5%, not 3% (sounds more believable)


Maybe I wasn't clear, that's 5% of shootings get solved, not homicides.



Although that's not much better, only 17% of homicides get solved.



In the 90s, it was over 60%

Groups have protested the use of ShotSpotter in various cities (including my own) because it targets "minority communities" 

They employ ShotSpotter where all the shootings happen... and obviously we know where that is.

So some of these completely useless community groups oppose it.