Gunshot acoustic detectors in cities?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ABTOMAT

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
926
Location
USA
Looked at the paper today (Boston Globe--no, I don't live in the city) and they had a article saying how they're considering listening devices in a grid across high-crime spots in the city. Supposedly can ID and find the location of gunshots. I thought this was some kind of fantasy tech until I saw references to other states that have done it. Some folks seem to think they work pretty well. Still sounds kind far-out to me.

Anyone else know about these things? Are they actually working in places or just some kind of feel-good luxury? It's an interesting idea to say the least.
 
There are a lot of limiting factors, such as buildings and other obstacles that block, defract and deflect noise, weather, etc. It's not a perfect technology.
 
thats why you have a lot of sensors placed all over the place, you only need three giving you an acurate location, the more the more acurate you are, it works on the same principle as GPS and seismic sensors. they triangulate the sound wave to to locate the source.I agree though the echos off buildings will give a lot of false positive readings.
 
will give a lot of false positive readings
Click to expand...

When they started installing these in Chicago the newspapers had several articles that explained how the detectors did not work from the noise of the muzzleblast but rather the "sonic boom" from the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

Gee I wonder how it woul work on a handgun whose bullet does not exceed the speed of sound? :confused:

NukemJim
 
Gee, I need to buy some more firecrackers! And suppressors for my carry sidearms. (Drat, that's going to get expensive).

This is more blissninny nonsense, is what it is, further eroding the right to be left alone. ...Alone and at the mercy of thugs with knives, lances, hammers, arrows, garrotes, tasers, chains, fists, steamrollers, etc. etc. etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but weren't humans killin' one another handlily long before there were guns?

--Herself
 
Lived in a rough part of NYC for a while - you could just stand outside and hear the shots on a Saturday night . . . . . . maybe the cops should just roll down the windows on the cruisers and save some tax payer dollars.

:neener:
 
My wife and I used to live in a shall we say, "less affluent" part of Richmond. It was really nice on a warm summer night to open the windows of our apartment, and listen to the sound of gunfire. Some was even full automatic. From time to time, it would be further away than the end of the block. :what:

Detectors? We didn't need no stinking detectors. :neener:
 
In Boston, huh?

Can they also detect the thunk of a knife into the chest of an unarmed victim? The dull thumps and cries, and laughing of the gang punks as an innocent, unarmed person is being beaten with baseball bats? How about the screams of an assaulted, unarmed woman? :fire:
 
Start chucking M-80s around on a fairly regular basis and they'll get tired of chasing their tails. Problem solved.
Biker
 
M-80's? Nah...the detectors in Chicago, at least, have cameras. You'd end up on the news the next morning as "possible terrahist apprehended using explosive devices"... :rolleyes:
 
Local news here stated that Minneapolis has the same intentions. I suppose it's another Nanny State item for our governments to waste our hard earned money on.
 
To NukeJim:

"When they started installing these in Chicago the newspapers had several articles that explained how the detectors did not work from the noise of the muzzleblast but rather the "sonic boom" from the bullet breaking the sound barrier."

Oh, BRILLIANT! So as long as the criminals with illegal weapons stick to .45 or heavy, subsonic 147gr 9mm, or shotguns, they'll be just fine!

Taxpayer dollars at work!
 
Manedwolf said:
M-80's? Nah...the detectors in Chicago, at least, have cameras. You'd end up on the news the next morning as "possible terrahist apprehended using explosive devices"...
Click to expand...
Looks like Orwell had it right.

Big Brother is watching and listening...:uhoh:

I got to go buy some more tinfoil...
 
BTW, I'd just given Boston's news stations a tip about the expensive new ShotSpotter things not being able to detect subsonic rounds, and advised them to check on the manufacturer to confirm that it detects the "sonic boom" of a round rather than the muzzle blast.

Hopefully a reporter will ask Mumbles Menino what would happen if a criminal used a regular subsonic .45, and he'll end up with a massive amount of egg on his face over this waste of funds.
 
Hmmmmmmm...

It appears that at least some of the Boss Sheep have been reading Black Arrow. :what:

They should have paid closer attention to the ending though. :D
 
I live in the outskirts of a major city. We are the closest spot where people go to test fire weapons. Usually at night, sometimes nice 10-12 round bursts in full auto. Kind of freaks my girlfriend a bit, but I find it soothing:what:

Kevin
 
As a law-abiding citizen, I'm not too threatened by this system. For one thing, it actually protects me. If I'm forced to pull the trigger, the knowledge that the police are now on their way is a good thing. I'm calling them just in case when I get the chance, but still.

As for the rest, well, it depends on how much the system costs and how effective it is at summoning police. If the police don't respond, well, it's worthless.

As for the linked article, downright they need to speed it up. A properly trained sniper will be blocks away within minutes, not hours. If he's hanging around, well, he's just asking to get caught. Conventional techniques can determine at least a rough shooting location faster than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top