A lot of problems can only be solved by a combination of solutions A and B. If A and B have never existed together, it's trivial to write research papers "proving" that A and B are ineffective. Of course they are.
That's not what ShotSpotter is selling. They're selling A. They tell you to buy A and it will reduce crime, increase arrests, or both.
What exactly do you think B is, anyway?
Your idea not to isolate variables is exactly what leads to bad science.
Everything works better if you combine it with an unnamed, unknown thing that makes it betters. It's a nonsense assertion.
We already know "aggressive law enforcement" reduces crime. If you put enough young men in prison for loitering, marijuana, and other victimless offenses, crime will go down because you have accidentally arrested a few would-be violent offenders.
But that's insanely unjust and expensive, so people pitch us things like ShotSpotter to make cops smarter.
Sure at a greater expense to the taxpayer than every single alternative tactic to crime reduction. Smells like a jobs program to me.....
I have a vague memory of some quote about "if you want to solve crime, keep young men off the streets until they're 25 and you'll have eliminated 90% of crime but that's not a workable policy" (and about 90% of traffic accidents, I reckon.)
> insanely unjust and expensive
Definitely that.
1. Get congressmen to earmark grant funds for shot spotter.
2. Purchase & Install
3. …
4. Cops get a report of loud noises.
The only useful thing I’m aware of is that these are installed in stadiums or other mass gathering venues and can triangulate location of a shooter in a chaotic environment.
Gun control needs to be a nation-wide policy, and it needs to be implemented with all the common-sense measures like buying back the guns from population - see Australia for one example where it worked.
Gun control is working out great, for tyrannical governments.