Massachusetts school first in the nation to deploy new ‘shooter detection system’

METHUEN, Mass. – The city says one of its schools will become the first in the nation to deploy an automated system to detect and track a gunman on campus.

www.boston.com...

I guess this is the first step towards making our children safer, right? What direction we are going in is the question and why I posted this on ATS. I would love to hear what people think about this development and where it might lead to in the future.

In the live demonstration, the ‘‘gunman’’ entered the school armed with an assault rifle, opening fire with dummy rounds first in the school library then rampaging through hallways and classrooms. But he had only a few minutes to wreak havoc.

Smoke alarm-sized sensors installed in classrooms, hallways and other points throughout the building were activated by the sounds of gunfire, and police officers were immediately able to track his movements and quickly subdue him.

Looks like a win win for lawmakers and gun owners if they would just give it a shot(pun) and let the data and lives saved speak for themselves. Stop this overbearing gun grab crap. It doesn't seem too intrusive, I believe it works silently and they managed to subdue the target in just a few minutes after opening fire. Sounds gravy...

‘‘It’s amazing, the short, split-second amount of time from identification of the shot to transmission of the message,’’ he said following the demonstration. ‘‘It changes the whole game. Without that shot detection system, we wouldn’t know what was going on in the school ... Valuable, valuable time can be lost. Unfortunately, with school crisis situations, it’s about mitigating loss.’’

Does anyone want to try and twist this into a dystopian, new world order invasion type of scenario? I'm having a hard time finding any fault in this system nor do I see it as big brotherish.

Founded in 2013, the company is among others across the country trying to market such ‘‘active shooter’’ systems to the owners and operators of malls, airports, government offices, schools and other public buildings.

The only problem I see is this type of "monitoring technology" to become the norm. A beast that grows when fear is the diet of choice. What happens when they use it to track innocent people just because they have a long beard or a backpack on? What do you think?

Similar systems have been used to make neighborhoods safe from gangs. In the past, a drive-by shooting would go unreported because people were too scared to call the police. The "ShotSpotter" automatically makes the calls

a reply to: stormcell

I didn't do much research on what systems are currently being used already so thanks for the info. It's this whole "active monitoring" thing. I like the approach but I just know they are going to justify the next wave of monitoring equipment based upon the success of this detection system.

Not to mention, a few minutes was all it took to subdue their shooter during the drill. Doesn't seem plausible to me in a real life situation but what do I know, it takes a real idiot to walk into a school and start shooting thinking it will end up well. and I wonder if they can be hacked or fooled in some way. Toss a flash bang to your left and then head to your right. Get what I'm saying?

a reply to: eisegesis

It looks like a reasonable enough system to me, however, it is nevertheless a case of dealing with the symptom and not the disease. Is this an indication of damage control and acceptance that school shootings are here for ever more. Does this mean that we're not really going to try to identify individuals and stop situations from escalating to such an extent, before the guns start firing?.

I would be more encouraged by this technology if there was demonstrable evidence of an effort to deal with the disease and eliminate these events altogether. I suspect that's probably too hard though.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

. But he had only a few minutes to wreak havoc.

It only takes a few minutes to do a lot of damage.The money they've spent on this system could have went toward live, armed guards, that could take out a threat, instead of just detect it. Even if the system works, how long will it take someone to get there and stop a gunman? Plenty of time for more deaths, that's for sure.

a reply to: myselfaswell

Agreed. Though I look at it as the imperfection of human nature. We will never be able to control ourselves in the manner our government wants us to. We are meant to feel anger and remorse and it's the people who don't have a healthy outlet to release these feelings that go bat sh!t crazy. Add medication, unhealthy eating, bad or abusive parenting and you have a recipe for disaster.

Like you said, cure the disease instead of managing the symptoms. But metaphorically, there's no money in a cure. And now that they have our money they want our freedoms. For them, things are going according to plan, just a lot slower. So slow in fact, that nobody notices it...maybe that is the plan after all.

Could be worse, it's got two things going for it:

1.) it isn't made by Diebold.

2.) it's not one of these:

a reply to: DAVID64

Yeah because nothing beats a good ole western style shootout inside a school full of kids

Hopefully this technology works and gets impelemented throughout the country

Factor in the human element and that system is a waste of money and could very well cost lives instead of saving them.

I just don't put my faith in LEOs rushing into a live fire scenario to save the day.

A well trained Guard and armed teachers and staff would be a better solution than just a glorified burglar alarm system.

originally posted by: DAVID64

. But he had only a few minutes to wreak havoc.

It only takes a few minutes to do a lot of damage.The money they've spent on this system could have went toward live, armed guards, that could take out a threat, instead of just detect it. Even if the system works, how long will it take someone to get there and stop a gunman? Plenty of time for more deaths, that's for sure.

How Much Would It Cost to Put Guards with Guns in Every Public School?

3. It wouldn't be that expensive. Here's some simple math. The median salary for police officers is $55,010 and there are about 99,000 public schools in the country -- and of those, about a third already have armed guards. Putting police in the remaining schools works out to an annual cost of about $3.6 billion, which is really more like $4 billion or so when you factor in benefits as well. That's not even a rounding error when it comes to the federal budget. It's even smaller than the foreign aid budget -- a point LaPierre demagogued -- despite foreign aid making up less than 1 percent of overall spending.

The NRA was attempting to mitigate all costs by using "volunteers". Not sure how that would work out. But even with the cost, most politician think more guns in more schools will keep less guns out of more schools.

Connors said his company’s technology is based on systems successfully developed for the military to help soldiers locate enemy fire during battles and could cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000, depending on the size and structure of the building.

It all depends on the application. A small building with one or two access points could benefit from one guard but in a larger facility they wouldn't be as effective. Using this system or even in tandem with an active guard might be the best approach. In the end though a guard with a gun can be way more effective in the right situation.

a reply to: eisegesis

But metaphorically, there's no money in a cure. And now that they have our money they want our freedoms. For them, things are going according to plan, just a lot slower. So slow in fact, that nobody notices it...maybe that is the plan after all.

You've well and truly nailed that one.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

originally posted by: stormcell
Similar systems have been used to make neighborhoods safe from gangs. In the past, a drive-by shooting would go unreported because people were too scared to call the police. The "ShotSpotter" automatically makes the calls

And now the cops are afraid to respond to those same neighborhoods.
As for the OP story I don't it's a bad idea in that this tech will isolate where in the school a shooter would be, saving a great deal of time in searching for the suspect which as both Sandy Hook and Columbine showed was a problem. I would prefer other methods less intrusive but whatever works - our kids deserve to be safe while at school.

So once installed ignore all "popping sounds" unless the alarm goes off?

"Must be a back fire".

"Yah, or firecrackers."

Goes back to reading paper in break room.

Limits response times instead of increasing them. Who better wants to know when kids are getting killed? The teachers in the teachers lounge or the kids in the classroom getting slaughtered? Like with any system it will have bugs and false alarms (kids are involved) that could contribute to complacency.

People need to stop over burdening the kids with their fears about what might happen.

At Columbine the police had to establish a perimeter first,it took how many minutes for the police to actually go in the buildings?

originally posted by: intrptr
So once installed ignore all "popping sounds" unless the alarm goes off?

"Must be a back fire".

"Yah, or firecrackers."

Goes back to reading paper in break room.

Limits response times instead of increasing them. Who better wants to know when kids are getting killed? The teachers in the teachers lounge or the kids in the classroom getting slaughtered? Like with any system it will have bugs and false alarms (kids are involved) that could contribute to complacency.

People need to stop over burdening the kids with their fears about what might happen.

Discriminating gunfire

Many techniques can be used to discriminate gunfire (also referred to as “classifying gunfire”) from similar noises such as cars backfiring. As discussed previously, the SPL and corresponding acoustic propagation characteristics of high SPL impulsive sounds gave rise to the ‘spatial filter’ technique patented and used by ShotSpotter in its Gunshot Location System. This is just one of several methods used to distinguish between gunfire and other impulsive sounds. Analysis of the spectral content of the sound, its envelope, and other heuristics are also commonly used methods to distinguish and correctly classify impulsive sounds as gunfire.

I was thinking the same thing but they have sorted all that out. Depending on the system, they can triangulate your location, the direction of gunfire and sometimes the type of weapon used.

A muzzle blast that occurs when an explosive charge is ignited to propel a projectile from the chamber of the weapon. A typical muzzle blast generates an impulse sound wave with a sound pressure level (SPL) that ranges from 120 dB to 160 dB

Add the crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier and you are not going to have many false positives if any.

Good system to have set up all over society, for when it all goes to s&*t and they want to pinpoint "resistors", if society did go bang, where would people seek refuge?....schools, stadiums ect....what do you all reckon?

originally posted by: tramman2000
Good system to have set up all over society, for when it all goes to s&*t and they want to pinpoint "resistors", if society did go bang, where would people seek refuge?....schools, stadiums ect....what do you all reckon?

The system they are installing in the Boston school seems reasonable. Add a camera system, facial recognition, possible x-ray tech and you have no place to hide.

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: tramman2000
Good system to have set up all over society, for when it all goes to s&*t and they want to pinpoint "resistors", if society did go bang, where would people seek refuge?....schools, stadiums ect....what do you all reckon?

The system they are installing in the Boston school seems reasonable. Add a camera system, facial recognition, possible x-ray tech and you have no place to hide.

Spot on my friend, coordinate them with drones and well, I think we know how that goes

a reply to: muse7

Yeah, because it's better to have a system that only detects a threat, not one that actually does something about it. This article portrays this system as a cure, when all it does is alert police and school administration. The ONLY reason it worked as well as it did, was because the cops were Right There, not miles away. If they were, how much longer would that give the shooter? 4 minutes? 6 minutes? 10?
Yep, better to know exactly where the bad guy is, after it's taken 5 minutes to get there, a few minutes to set up a perimeter, don your vest, wait on the SWAT team, then go get that shooter, cause you know right where he killed that last one.
Or
You have live, armed guards who stop the threat before the cops even get there.

a reply to: eisegesis

I was thinking the same thing but they have sorted all that out. Depending on the system, they can triangulate your location, the direction of gunfire and sometimes the type of weapon used.

Outside. yes. Inside a room the wall detectors will register a shot or multiple shots, but then its too late. The students are dying.

I guess its better than nothing… makes everyone "feel" safer?

Considering response times of law enforcement (in the past) to actually enter the places where mass shootings happen, it won't make much difference. They will find everyone dead and the shooter having turned the gun on himself.