U.S.: Responding to the “gunshot detection” tool ShotSpotter, a Chicago police officer opened fire on an unarmed teenager

My own car has backfired exactly once, and it's a 90s car. And that was under very specific, non ideal, "I'm trying to get the engine started and I might have held the ignition too long" circumstances.

I can count on one hand the number of backfires I've heard in the last 20 years.

In my area, I'll hear cars intentionally tuned to backfire probably multiple times a day. It's extremely annoying and sounds very similar to gunshots.

My modified car does more than I like. It needs a new tune and currently runs stupidly rich.

That said, it is rarer in stock modern fuel injected engines which can more accurately adjust the fuel to the air and throttle position than old school carbs can.

ShotSpotter is inaccurate and unreliable. The amount of reflections you get in an urban environment make it very difficult to triangulate the source of a sound. It is falsely triggered by many sounds that are not gunshots such as fireworks and vehicles backfiring. Also, ShotSpotter costs a ridiculous amount of money that could be better spent on more police training and more patrols.

I hate this kind of surveillance.

But if it's used in supplement to an actual report or as part of an investigation of a crime identified or reported in another manner, I can see some use to it.

But as an initial reason to go look into a possible shooting, I disagree with it entirely. If it were used as a means to send potential medical aid to a location, it could be also be beneficial. But sending law enforcement is the wrong response, imo. We would need to rework our first responder system though and stop sending police to every fucking thing.

Cultural narcissism. People are obsessed with their rights but don’t think in their responsibilities.

I mean there are a couple issues that make gun control difficult in the US:

• Huge number of guns already in the country. Even if stricter gun laws were passed there are so many guns in circulation that it will still be easy to get illegal guns. Many of the guns have been sold or changed owners multiple times meaning there's no database/etc that will let these guns be easily tracked down or collected.

• it's easy to compare the US to Europe due to having the same economic output and looking somewhat similar in size on a map, but the US is about twice as large as Europe with less than half of Europe's population. A huge amount of the country is rural, and they want guns for wild animals/security/etc.

• Relatively unsecured Mexican border. Funnily enough this is one thing I would think both political parties would be in agreement over. For any serious gun control to work, the Mexican border would need to be secured. It's probably a moot point because of the first point though, but you can't try to resolve the first point without having more control over what enters the country.

• This isn't a US specific issue, but 3d printed guns are a thing now, and are getting better all the time. I think countries that have largely been gun free are going to have increasing issues with criminals having guns, and their law enforcement will have to adapt.

So basically there are a lot of people who want to own guns, and many of them have legitimate reasons for some gun ownership. Passing strong gun laws will be problematic for those people, while being unlikely to actually reduce the availability of illegal guns. Gun laws would probably help with school shootings though since I think most of those guns are legally owned guns stolen from family members.

I'm sure people have some great counter arguments for my points, but my main point is it's not a simple as "ban guns". And I'm not even getting into 2nd amendment and the idea that the American people have a responsibility to stay armed enough to hold their government accountable through force if needed.

What is even the purpose of this post? If you're going to be so ignorant of US history, at least don't act so high and mighty about your implications.

How do Americans still allow guns to be so easily available?

The 2nd Amendment, for one. It's a constitutional amendment that hasn't changed since the Constitution was written, back in 1787. It's also the 2nd, and not say, the 20th, so its importance is more significant in the minds of the American public than certain ones we've gotten rid of, like the alcohol ban (18th).

It requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress to change a constitutional amendment, and that sure as fuck ain't happening with today's batshit crazy GOP. They can't even keep their own party together with the right-wing crazies having fights with the extremely-right wing House majority leaders because they have the gall to "compromise", which is the whole fucking point of Congress.

Besides, all of this talk of "banning guns" is unproductive. If you want to make change, start with regulations. Canada's got a shit ton of guns, and nobody's bitching about them, because they are properly regulated.

Isn’t it well past the point where incidents involving guns should almost never happen?

What the fuck does this question even mean? Is what "well past the point"? Why would "incidents involving guns" should almost never happen? Brits have gun bans, and they still have gun incidents.

Banning a thing doesn't make it go away. I thought we learned this shit with the War on (some) Drugs. Or, for that manner, Prohibition. (Do you like gangs? Well, you can thank Prohibition for that shit.)