By Brady: United Against Gun Violence.

Every gun on our streets starts somewhere, and the overwhelming majority have their origins in the legal marketplace. Understanding how guns — particularly those that have been diverted from legal commerce to the underground market — make their way to crime scenes is essential to crafting evidence-based and life-saving solutions to the American gun violence epidemic. There is — or should be — nothing controversial about this tracing approach. Epidemiologists and other scientists routinely study the origins of public health challenges in order to develop effective solutions, treatments, and preventative measures. It is a key component of the scientific method. Unfortunately, the best national data on the sources and paths of crime guns has been hidden from researchers, journalists, and the general public for nearly two decades. The gun industry successfully pushed the federal government to restrict public access to this critical gun trace data, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has aided the industry’s efforts by adopting an overly broad interpretation of those regulatory restrictions. Although some state and local law enforcement agencies have released gun UNDERSTANDING HOW GUNS — PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FROM LEGAL COMMERCE TO THE UNDERGROUND MARKET — MAKE THEIR WAY TO CRIME SCENES IS ESSENTIAL TO CRAFTING EVIDENCE-BASED AND LIFE-SAVING SOLUTIONS TO THE AMERICAN GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC. trace data in the last 20 years, the amount has been insufficient to develop the comprehensive, life-saving solutions that we need. In this report you will find an analysis of the most important gun trace dataset to be publicly available in decades. Attorney General Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania has released trace data for 186,000 crime guns from over 150 law enforcement agencies in his state, allowing the public to identify, for the first time in decades, which gun dealers appear to supply the most guns to the illegal market. This data is publicly available on the Pennsylvania Gun Tracing Analytics Platform. It is very important to note that the gun tracing dataset, while extensive, is not comprehensive. It does not include crime guns recovered by local Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies that have opted against sharing trace data. For that reason, the findings in this report are not the definitive picture of crime guns in the state. However, this dataset should nonetheless enable the public, policymakers, and law enforcement to hold the gun industry accountable for its role in supplying crime guns — and, in doing so, ultimately save lives. By focusing on the small number of gun dealers now known to be contributing to the problem, Pennsylvanians and their leaders will be able to put political, legal, and economic pressure on the irresponsible actors of the gun industry and bring about needed reforms to ensure that firearms are transferred responsibly and safely. Like all data, gun trace data has its limits; its insights, while key to understanding gun trafficking, are just one part of that process. Earlier this year, Brady unveiled an extensive — and ever-growing — database containing another piece to the puzzle: ATF compliance inspection reports detailing federal firearms licensees (FFLs) who have been issued a warning letter or more severe remedy for cited violations of gun laws. We encourage readers to also view that resource, the Gun Store Transparency Project, at www.gunstoretransparency.org. As you read through these findings, keep in mind that many of the 186,000 crime guns in the database are likely associated with one or more crime victim(s) and their families. If this were not staggering enough, the devastating ripple effects gun violence inflicts on families, neighborhoods, and communities are not captured in these numbers. Brady invites you to join us in advocating for solutions that address the supply side of gun violence. We invite researchers to study this data and build on our analysis; we implore journalists to report on not just the tragic results of gun violence incidents, but how crime guns end up in our communities; we urge lawmakers and law enforcement to adopt life-saving, supply-side solutions to gun violence; and we call on federal, state, and local authorities to be more transparent by releasing more trace data to the public. It is long past time for the gun industry as a whole to adopt meaningful supply-side solutions ensuring firearms are transferred safely and responsibility, as it is neither fair nor just to ask the communities suffering the immense harms of gun violence to also bear the burden of providing all the solutions.

Washington, DC: Brady: United Against Gun Violence, 2022. 43p.

SHAH, MARIAM

The following excerpt from the document contains multiple links embedded in the original text: "Islamic State (IS) recently released a powerful recruitment message for 'distracted Muslim youth' to travel and join IS territories across the world. It highlights a disturbing trend in how terrorist organisations are using technology to recruit and mobilise members through a single message. It also shows that contemporary terror groups and extremist organisations are adapting fast to emerging technologies. This Insight aims to highlight an alarming reality: the exploitation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology by terrorist and violent extremist groups to strengthen recruitment efforts. These groups proficiently manipulate online platforms, leveraging sophisticated AI tools to disseminate tailored propaganda content to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and amplify divisive narratives, thereby fostering radicalisation and recruitment. From using encrypted messaging apps like Telegram and WhatsApp to seeking refuge in the anonymity of the Dark Web, these groups employ various tactics to evade AI detection and exploit vulnerabilities. By leveraging AI tools, these groups engage in personalised messaging, rapid distribution, and exploitation of social media algorithms to amplify their reach and influence susceptible individuals."

GLOBAL NETWORK ON EXTREMISM AND TECHNOLOGY (GNET). 4 JUL, 2024. 8p.

UNITED STATES. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL

From the document: "A recent nationally representative survey (n=1,271) found that the majority of U.S. adults or their family members (54%) have experienced a firearm-related incident. Among all respondents, 21% have personally been threatened with a firearm, 19% have a family member who was killed by a firearm (including by suicide), 17% have witnessed someone being shot, 4% have shot a firearm in self-defense, and 4% have been injured by a firearm (Figure 2). 'Nearly 6 in 10 U.S. adults say that they worry 'sometimes,' 'almost every day,' or 'every day,' about a loved one being a victim of firearm violence.' Such high levels of exposure to firearm violence for both children and adults give rise to a cycle of trauma and fear within our communities, contributing to the nation's mental health crisis. This Advisory describes the public health crisis of firearm violence in America and describes strategies for firearm injury and violence prevention, with a focus on the health and well-being of children, families, and communities."

United States. Public Health Service. Office of the Surgeon Genera. . 2024. 49p.

By Norah W. Friar, Molly Merrill-Francis, Elizabeth M. Parker, Carlos Siordia, Thomas R. Simon

Secure firearm storage might help reduce access by children and other unauthorized users and the related risk for injury or death. Information about state-specific prevalence of firearm storage practices can be used to develop secure storage messages and programs; however, such information is often unavailable. Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, by respondent characteristics, were used to estimate prevalence of keeping firearms in or around the home and related storage practices for eight states that administered the firearm safety module in 2021 or 2022. Overall, 18.4% (California) to 50.6% (Alaska) of respondents reported that a firearm was kept in or around their home. Among those with a firearm in or around the home, 19.5% (Minnesota) to 43.8% (North Carolina) reported that a firearm was stored loaded. Across all eight states, approximately one half of those with a loaded firearm stored at least one loaded firearm unlocked. Among respondents with a child and a loaded firearm in the home, 25.2% (Ohio) to 41.4% (Alaska) reported that a loaded firearm was stored unlocked. Variability in firearm storage practices highlights the importance of local data and suggests opportunities to tailor prevention efforts to specific population groups to reduce risk for firearm handling by children without adult supervision, and other unauthorized persons.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 73 / No. 23 , June 13, 2024.

By Alex R. Piquero, John K. Roman

In 2020, the US experienced the largest 1-year increase in homicide since 1960. The spike began in the first few months of the year, accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency measures, the murder of George Floyd, and social protests.1 Three additional observations are relevant. First, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that the homicide increase in 2020 was due to firearm injuries. While the overall homicide rate increased 28.4%, the firearm homicide rate increased 34.6%.2 Second, the spike in violence was concentrated within certain demographic groups. CDC researchers found 19 384 victims of firearms homicide in 2020.3 Of those victims, 61% were Black individuals, and they experienced firearm homicide at 14 times the rate of White indviduals in 2020. This racial disparity does not exist for other types of violence.4 Third, the largest increases in death by firearm homicide were for Black men aged between 10 and 44 years old

JAMA Network Open. 2024;7(5):e2412946. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12946

By Rosanna Smart

Background

Despite growing evidence about how state-level firearm regulations affect overall rates of injury and death, little is known about whether potential harms or benefits of firearm laws are evenly distributed across demographic subgroups. In this systematic review, we synthesized available evidence on the extent to which firearm policies produce differential effects by race and ethnicity on injury, recreational or defensive gun use, and gun ownership or purchasing behaviors.

Main body

We searched 13 databases for English-language studies published between 1995 and February 28, 2023 that estimated a relationship between firearm policy in the USA and one of eight outcomes, included a comparison group, evaluated time series data, and provided estimated policy effects differentiated by race or ethnicity. We used pre-specified criteria to evaluate the quality of inference and causal effect identification. By policy and outcome, we compared policy effects across studies and across racial/ethnic groups using two different ways to express effect sizes: incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and rate differences. Of 182 studies that used quasi-experimental methods to evaluate firearm policy effects, only 15 estimated policy effects differentiated by race or ethnicity. These 15 eligible studies provided 57 separate policy effect comparisons across race/ethnicity, 51 of which evaluated interpersonal violence. In IRR terms, there was little consistent evidence that policies produced significantly different effects for different racial/ethnic groups. However, because of different baseline homicide rates, similar relative effects for some policies (e.g., universal background checks) translated into significantly greater absolute differences in homicide rates among Black compared to white victims.

Conclusions

The current literature does not support strong conclusions about whether state firearm policies differentially benefit or harm particular racial/ethnic groups. This largely reflects limited attention to these questions in the literature and challenges with detecting such effects given existing data availability and statistical power. Findings also emphasize the need for additional rigorous research that adopts a more explicit focus on testing for racial differences in firearm policy effects and that assesses the quality of race/ethnicity information in firearm injury and crime datasets.

Inj Epidemiol. 2023; 10: 67.

By Glenn L. Pierce; David Lambert; Daniel Trovato; and Peter Gagliardi

This study examines the innovative use of firearms related evidence to enhance violent crime investigations in New Jersey. This effort changed the use of firearms forensic evidence from a sole evidential focus to one that also incorporates a premonitory focus required to generate investigative leads. This project demonstrated the critical importance of fusing firearms forensic evidence such as ballistics imaging with locally available information, such as arrest and incident data on a statewide basis. This study further demonstrated the value of ballistics imaging to connect previously unconnected incidents, individuals, and weapons particularly when combined with other law enforcement data sets. This project demonstrated the critical importance of fusing firearms forensic evidence such as ballistics imaging with locally available information, such as arrest and incident data on a statewide basis. This study further demonstrated the value of ballistics imaging to connect, previously unconnected incidents, individuals, and weapons particularly when combined with other law enforcement data sets. It illustrated the critical need of information sharing across forensic, criminal intelligence (such as fusion and real time crime centers), and investigative entities across all levels of government – local, state, and federal - in supporting violent crime suppression efforts. The study is a mixed methods approach to policy analysis using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The researchers’ analyzed ballistics imaging submissions over a multi-year period in addition to examining open source and agency documents that tracked many of the crime reduction projects the New Jersey State Police incorporated into their crime gun intelligence effort.

Boston: Northeastern University, 2023. 120p.

By V A Pear , J P Schleimer , A J Aubel , S Buggs , C E Knoepke , R Pallin , A B Shev , E Tomsich , G J Wintemute , N Kravitz-Wirtz

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) provide a civil mechanism to temporarily remove firearm access from individuals at high risk of harming themselves or others. Evidence and theory suggest that ERPOs can prevent firearm-related harm, but the policy's impact on racial/ethnic equity is largely unknown. To examine potential inequities by race/ethnicity in public perceptions and use of California's ERPO law, we drew on two complementary data sources: 1) a 2020 state-representative survey of California adults, and 2) ERPO court documents for the first 3 years of policy implementation (2016-2018). Majorities (54-89%) of all racial/ethnic groups reported that ERPOs are at least sometimes appropriate, and 64-94% were willing to ask a judge for an ERPO for a family member. However, Black and Hispanic/Latinx survey participants less often perceived ERPOs as appropriate and were less willing to serve as petitioners, with Black participants citing lack of knowledge about ERPOs and not trusting the system to be fair as their top reasons for unwillingness. Similarly, review of ERPO court documents revealed that no family or household members served as petitioners for Black and Hispanic/Latinx ERPO respondents. Additionally, Black respondents were the least likely to have documented access to a firearm and legal representation in court. Racial/ethnic equity in ERPO use may be improved by reducing barriers to petitioning, incorporating non-law enforcement intervention professionals like behavioral health specialists into the ERPO process, providing legal assistance to respondents and petitioners, and investing in the social safety net.

Prev Med. 2022 Dec;165(Pt A):107181. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107181. Epub 2022 Aug 6. PMID: 35940474.

By Hillel Y. Levin & Timothy D. Lytton

In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), granting the firearms industry sweeping immunity from civil lawsuits. However, PLCAA immunity is not absolute. This Article demonstrates that both state and federal courts have fundamentally misread PLCAA when adjudicating cases involving the scope of gun industry immunity. Properly understood, PLCAA permits lawsuits against the gun industry so long as they are based on statutory causes of action rather than common law. While broadly preempting state common law claims, PLCAA affords state legislatures autonomy in deciding how to regulate the gun industry within their borders.

Additionally, this Article addresses unresolved questions concerning constitutional limits on gun industry regulation. PLCAA explicitly strikes a balance between three constitutional principles. It safeguards the individual right to keep and bear arms by protecting the gun industry from civil litigation that would unduly curtail civilian access to firearms. It insists that the separation of powers requires that gun industry regulation should derive from legislation not common law adjudication. It affords state governments autonomy in deciding how to regulate the gun industry, recognizing that there are regional differences in attitudes about how to best reduce firearms-related violence. We counsel against interpretations of the Second Amendment’s application to gun industry regulation that would expand the right to keep and bear arms at the expense of other important constitutional principles such as the separation of powers and federalism

75 Florida Law Review 833 (2023),

By Avneet Bhullar, Jonathan Shipley, […], and Jeffry Nahmias, , et al,

Background

In January of 2019, Washington State (WA) passed Initiative 1639 making it illegal for persons <21 years-old to buy assault weapons (AWs). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of WA-1639 on firearm-related incidents involving AWs by those <21 years-old in WA, hypothesizing a decrease in incidents after WA-1639.

Methods

Retrospective (2016-2021) data on firearm violence (FV) events were gathered from the Gun Violence Archive. The rate of FV was weighted per 100,000 people. Total monthly incidents, injuries, and deaths were compared pre-law (January 2016-December 2018) vs post-law (January 2019-December 2021) implementation. Mann-Whitney U tests and Poisson’s regression were used for analysis.

Results

From 4091 FV incidents (2210 (54.02%) pre-law vs 1881 (45.98%) post-law), 50 involved AWs pre- (2.3%) and 15 (.8%) post-law. Of these, 11 were committed by subjects <21 years-old pre-law and only one occurred post-law. Total incidents of FV (z = −3.80, P < .001), AW incidents (z = −4.28, P < .001), and AW incidents involving someone <21 years-old (z = −3.01, P < .01) decreased post-law. Additionally, regression analysis demonstrated the incident rate ratio (IRR) of all FV (1.23, 95% CI [1.10-1.38], P < .001), all AW FV incidents (3.42, 95% CI [1.70-6.89], P = .001), and AW incidents by subjects <21 years-old (11.53, 95% CI [1.52-87.26], P = .02) were greater pre-law vs post-law.

Discussion

Following implementation of WA-1639, there was a significant decrease in FV incidents and those involving AWs by individuals <21 years-old. This suggests targeted firearm legislation may help curtail FV. Further studies evaluating FV after legislation implementation in other states is needed to confirm these findings.

The American SurgeonTM. 2024;0(0). doi:10.1177/00031348241244644 (Online First)

By Livia Wagner and Thi Hoang

   The coronavirus is not only claiming hundreds of thousands of lives, but is also causing a global economic crisis that is expected to rival or exceed that of any recession in the past 150 years. Although decisive action and containment measures are helping flatten the curve of infection, such measures inevitably deepen and lengthen the economic recession. In the worst-case scenario, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that up to 25 million people will lose their jobs worldwide. Poverty, lack of social or economic opportunity and limited labour protections are the main root causes and drivers that render people vulnerable or cause them to fall victim to human trafficking. This unprecedented crisis will likely exacerbate all of those factors and result in developments (see Figure 1) that must be noted by anti human-trafficking communities and stakeholders.  

Geneva:  Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. 2020, 41pg

By Rachel Martin

Gun violence is widely considered a serious public health problem in the United States, but less understood is what this means, if anything, for evolving Second Amendment doctrine. In New York Pistol & Rifle Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that laws infringing Second Amendment rights can only be sustained if the government can point to sufficient historical analogues. Yet, what qualifies as sufficiently similar, a suitable number of jurisdictions, or the most important historical eras all remain unclear. Under Bruen, lower courts across the country have struck down gun laws at an alarming pace, while scholars and jurists continue debating the so-called true meaning of centuries-old firearm restrictions at times when slavery existed, women could not vote, and it took Thomas Jefferson longer to travel from Washington, D.C. to Williamsburg, VA than it currently takes to fly to the other side of the planet. This approach ignores the historical relevance of the government’s authority, if not outright duty, to respond to public health crises even if constitutional rights were implicated. The lack of historical laws related to mass shootings, large capacity magazines, and bullets designed to expand inside the body reflects the drastic evolution of gun violence rather than an impenetrable Second Amendment scope. Indeed, while state police powers to protect public health and safety preexist the Constitution, gun violence would have hardly been a priority for elected officials historically. Thus, the absence of robust, widespread gun regulations hardly reflects a consensus understanding of Second Amendment protections. Instead, examining accepted government restrictions for public health crises such as infectious diseases may provide better insight into the scope of authority to limit constitutional rights to protect the public. A public health law lens also helps to clarify that cementing policy options to emerging public health problems lacks historical pedigree.

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2023, 20pg

By F. Lee Francis

This article is the culmination of a yearlong research project, and it is the first to address addiction and drug use in the area of Second Amendment Law. I argue that addicts may be disarmed, if they are dangerous. My dangerousness test centers on illicit use and imminent danger. That is, do the facts and circumstances prove that an individual is in fact a danger. To put it another way, disarmament is appropriate when there exists demonstrable evidence that a person poses a significant and imminent risk of causing public injury. The article develops and expands upon some themes and arguments that were first sketched out in my articles, Armed and Under the Influence: The Second Amendment and the Intoxicant Rule After Bruen (Forthcoming in the Marquette Law Review (2024) and Defining Dangerousness: When Disarmament is Appropriate (Forthcoming Texas Tech Law Review 2024).

There is growing confusion within the lower courts regarding when an individual, particularly those who have a history of drug use or addiction, may have their Second Amendment rights restricted. This paper intends to clarify the appropriate standard. The goal of this article is to aid in determining when an individual should be permanently disarmed.

Part I surveys the history of addiction. This section examines the commonness of addiction around the time of the founding to the early twentieth century. Furthermore, Part I also reviews the relevant legislative action relating to firearm possession, use, and control and addiction. The essential claim of Part I contends that modern laws restricting the possession of a firearm due to addiction are unconstitutional. Following an examination of the relevant history and legislation, Part II considers the arguments in favor of prohibiting addicts from possessing firearms. Part III focuses on the modern and developing controversies surrounding criminalizing the possession of firearms because of an individual’s history of addiction. Part IV, then, examines when an addict may be disarmed.

Francis, F. Lee, The Addiction Restriction: Addiction and the Right to Bear Arms. 2024, 48pg

By Dennis Mares

This document is part of the Response Guide series which is one of three series in the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. Response guides summarize knowledge about whether police should use certain responses to address various crime and disorder problems, and about what effects they might expect. This guide include examples and case studies as it covers the basic principles of gunfire detection and how it works; discusses the efficacy and police uses of acoustic gunshot detection systems, describing types of systems, experimental applications of the technology, and accuracy of acoustic gunshot detection systems; describes the analysis of acoustic gunshot detection system data; recommends best practices for responding to gunshots; and gives advice for implementing acoustic gunshot detection system, noting considerations such as coverage area, costs, personnel needs, interoperability with other systems, training requirements, and other factors that may impact decision-making.

PROBLEM-ORIENTED GUIDES FOR POLICE RESPONSE GUIDE SERIES NO. 14 Tempe, AZ: ASU Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, 2022. 29p

By Daniel S. Lawrence, Nancy G. La Vigne, Paige S. Thompson

This publication represents a technical summary report of the Urban Institute’s evaluation of the implementation, use, and impact of Gunshot Detection Technology (GDT) by law enforcement agencies in three cities: Denver, CO; Milwaukee, WI; and Richmond, CA. The goal of this study was to conduct a rigorous process and impact evaluation of GDT to inform policing researchers and practitioners about the impact GDT may have. To achieve this goal, we implemented a mixed-methods research design. Qualitative data collection included 46 interviews with criminal justice stakeholders to learn implementation processes and challenges associated with iDT, and 6 focus groups with 49 community members to learn how residents feel about policing efforts to reduce firearm violence and its use of GDT. Quantitative data collection included administrative data on calls for service (CFS), crime, and GDT alerts, as well as comprehensive case file reviews of 174 crimes involving a firearm. Quantitative analyses examined the impact of GDT by (1) comparing counts of gunshot notifications for GDT alerts to shooting-related CFS, (2) comparing response times of GDT alerts to shooting-related CFS, (3) examining the impact GDT has had on CFS and crimes, and (4) conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the GDT. Evaluation findings suggest that GDT is generally but not consistently associated with faster response times and more evidence collection, with impact on crime more uneven but generally cost-beneficial. We also conclude that agencies should implement GDT sensors strategically, train officers thoroughly, ensure that GDT data are used and integrated with other systems, and engage with community members early and often. More detailed information from this study will be available in forthcoming journal articles.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute 2019. 15p.

By Dennis Mares and the Center for Crime Science and Violence Prevention

ShotSpotter’s gunshot detection system was deployed in Winston-Salem in August 2021. Since then, nearly 2,000 alerts received a response by Winston-Salem Police.

Results indicate: 

• Improved response to gunfire

  • The response to alerts is significantly quicker than those called in by residents (- 5 min.).

  • ShotSpotter calls received significantly more investigative time, which likely indicates improved evidence recovery.

  • Fewer than one in four ShotSpotter alerts also received a call from residents.

• ShotSpotter produces the following actionable results:

  • Shell casings were recovered in 581 incidents (37.1%)

  • Firearms were recovered in 47 (3%) of alerts.

  • Sixty-seven (3.4%) gun-related arrests are connected to alerts. 

• Deployment of ShotSpotter is related to a reduction in violent gun crimes:

  • Aggravated assaults are down 26% comparing before-after results in the ShotSpotter area.

  • Comparable area and overall city numbers indicate an increase in aggravated assaults during the same period. Comparatively assaults are down 38% in the ShotSpotter community.

  • In real numbers, there are between 51-75 fewer assaults annually in the ShotSpotter area than would be expected. 

• Cost-Benefits:

  • Our estimate suggests that ShotSpotter may save the Winston Salem community between $5 and $8 Million annually.

  • Average annual implementation cost is estimated between $230,000-350,000

  • This indicates a $15-25 return for each dollar spent.

Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University, Center for Crime Science and Violence Prevention, 2024. 27p.

By Eric L. Piza, Rachael A. Arietti, Jeremy G. Carter & George O. Mohler

Objectives

This study tests whether (1) shots fired calls for service in the gunshot detection technology (GDT) target area are more likely to be classified as unfounded; (2) police responses to shootings in the GDT target area are more likely to recover ballistic evidence or firearms; and (3) shootings in the GDT target area are more likely to be cleared.

Methods

Entropy balancing created a weighted control group that equaled the treatment group across a range of covariates. GDT effect was tested through logistic regression models with entropy balancing weights set as probability weights.

Results

Shots fired occurring in the GDT target area were 15% more likely to be classified as unfounded compared to control cases. GDT did not significantly influence the likelihood of evidence collection or case clearance in shooting incidents.

Conclusions

GDT may not add investigative value to police responses to shooting incidents and may increase patrol workload.

J Exp Criminol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09594-6

By Eric L. Piza, David N. Hatten, Jeremy G. Carter, Jonas H. Baughman, George O. Mohler

Gunshot Detection Technology (GDT) is expected to impact gun violence by accelerating the discovery and response to gunfire. GDT should further collect more accurate spatial data, as gunfire is assigned to coordinates measured by acoustic sensors rather than addresses reported via 9-1-1 calls for service (CFS). The current study explores the level to which GDT achieves these benefits over its first five years of operation in Kansas City, Missouri. Data systems are triangulated to determine the time and location gunfire was reported by GDT and CFS. The temporal and spatial distances between GDT and CFS are then calculated. Findings indicate GDT generates time savings and increases spatial precision as compared to CFS. This may facilitate police responses to gunfire events and provide more spatially accurate data to inform policing strategies. Results of generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models indicate that GDT benefits are influenced by a number of situational factors.

Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paac097 , 2023 38p.

By Pilar Kelly,  Angie Weis Gammell, Lindsay Bass-Patel

  In July 2023, the Wilson Center conducted nine focus groups and two individual interviews, with a total of 30 participants who live in the ShotSpotter pilot area in Durham, North Carolina. Participants were asked to discuss their perceptions of safety, gun violence, policing in their neighborhoods, ShotSpotter technology, and changes in policing or violence since the ShotSpotter pilot began. Participants had not observed any impact on gun crime since ShotSpotter was implemented, nor did they believe ShotSpotter could help to reduce gun crime. No resident identified any negative change in police activity or tactics since ShotSpotter was implemented. The participants who reported seeing changes in policing since ShotSpotter described those changes in a positive light. For participants who expressed opposition to having ShotSpotter in their neighborhoods, their opposition was rooted primarily in a lack of trust rather than direct experiences. This mistrust was directed toward City Council, ShotSpotter as a corporation, policing as an institution, and concerns about technology storing sensitive data. The majority of participants who spoke about the cost of ShotSpotter expressed negative views and suggested that the money would be better spent on other initiatives. Additionally, some residents felt unheard in the decision-making process to pilot ShotSpotter, which contributed to negative feelings about both the technology and City Council. Still, participants expressed hopes that ShotSpotter may lead to faster response times and more direct communication between residents and police, both of which they believe may work to enhance community members trust in police officers. Regarding whether ShotSpotter should continue in their community, two participants expressed strong support for continuing the ShotSpotter program, eight participants expressed strong opposition, and ten participants expressed conditional responses or uncertainty. For example, some participants would support the program if there were data that demonstrated ShotSpotter was impactful and effective.   

Durham, NC: Wilson Center for Science and Justice, at Duke Law School, 2024. 32p.

By Philip J. Cook and Adam Soliman

The City of Durham contracted with SoundThinking for a 12-month pilot program with ShotSpotter, a gunfire detection system. The system was installed in a three square-mile area of Durham that was selected based on having a relatively high rate of gun violence. The pilot operated from December 15, 2022 through December 14, 2023. This evaluation offers information on both the costs and the relevant impacts of the ShotSpotter pilot installation, but it does not offer a suggestion on whether the City should use ShotSpotter in the future. It is intended to inform the decision-makers, but not to advise them. Notifications and Deployments The ShotSpotter (SS) installation operated as a supplement to the 911 system, whereby residents are encouraged to contact the Durham Police Department (DPD) if they hear or witness a shooting. During the pilot period, DPD received 1,447 notifications of gunfire in the target area in which ShotSpotter was installed: 57% of these were SS alerts with no 911 call, 28% were 911 calls with no SS alert, and 15% had both 911 and SS notifications. Thus SS more than doubled the number of gunshot notifications compared with what DPD would have received (from 911) in its absence. DPD implemented a response protocol for the entire city on December 15, 2022 that any gunshot notification would be treated as a Priority 2 incident, requiring the immediate deployment of two patrol cars to the scene without sirens and flashers. In the target area, the effect of the “extra” SS alerts was to add an average of 2.3 Priority 2 deployments daily to the target area, approximately a 2% increase citywide. The SS installation was designed to detect gunfire that occurred outdoors, with a few exceptions (such as if the firearm was equipped with a silencer). For the 52 known gunshot incidents during the pilot period in which victims were wounded or killed, SS alerts were published for 26 and 911 calls received for 50 of these 52. Eight of the incidents (accounting for 14 gunshot victims) that were missed by SS were due to system failure or human error. In addition to these false negatives, there were likely some false positives, but we have no way to estimate how frequent. SS alerts include information on the time and precise location of the incident, and the number of shots fired. They were transmitted directly to DPD’s CAD system in each patrol car, almost always within 60 seconds. For incidents in which there is both a SS alert and a 911 call, the SS alert typically was first, and often provided a more precise location. Our analysis finds that in 2023, the median response time (from alert to arrival at the scene) was 5.5 minutes, which reflected a decline by 1.2 minutes in the target area compared with the rest of the city. There was a still greater improvement in the 90th percentile of response times, which declined by 3.6 minutes. In sum, SS had the effect of more than doubling the number of gunshot notifications received by DPD for the target area, and notably improving response times by patrol officers. 

Durham, NC: Wilson Center for Science and Justice, at Duke Law School, 2024. 39p.