An interdisciplinary examination of a gunshot detection system: The public health context of a policing technology

Abstract

Gun violence is a unique, preventable problem that contributes to a significant burden of healthcare and social costs, disability, and death in the United States. To address gun violence, several surveillance technologies have been implemented in municipalities across the US which are facilitating the collection of large amounts of data with the aim of reducing the occurrence of gun violence and responding to such incidences more quickly. One tool is ShotSpotter®, a popular acoustic gunshot detection system deployed by police departments. There are, however, research gaps about the concerns of using this technology and, to our knowledge, very little discussion about the implications and its effect on vulnerable groups exists. Accordingly, in this article, we argue against the use of technologies such as ShotSpotter as current data show inconsistent results in reducing violence. We also suggest the potential for harm from such surveillance technology should be cautiously weighed, as it could exceed the benefits of using such technology, thereby warranting further examination and research.

Introduction

The current level of concern about gun violence in the United States is such that the American Public Health Association's (APHA) keynote address in the November 2022 considered the problem of gun violence as a public health crisis. This perception extends beyond the United States and some tourists are avoiding travel to the US as a result of the issue being mishandled and out of control (Wong, 2024). Gun violence is a leading cause of premature death and kills 38,000 people and injures another 85,000 annually in the US (APHA, 2022a, 2022b). Gun violence costs are estimated to be $280 billion per year, which includes costs from firearm assault injury requiring medical and mental health care, emergency transportation, insurance claims processing, police/criminal justice activities, lost time from work and employer costs, disability costs, and decreased quality of life (Follman et al., 2015). Gun violence disproportionately affects young people of color living in urban communities as well as particular ethnic groups. For example, American Indian and Alaskan Native people had the highest gun-related suicide rate compared to any other ethnic group, while the homicide rate among Black males between 10 to 24 years was 21.6 times higher than white males in the same age group (APHA, 2022b).

Several policies and interventions have been formulated to address the problem of gun violence. For example, at the federal level, a number of policies and regulations have been administered, such as: the Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) which prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone; the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) which requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on the seller and venue; the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) which banned semi-automatic firearms that looked like assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices; the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004) which granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions; and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) which prevents firearm manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products (Kerr, 2018). Several other measures have been implemented at the level of criminal justice systems and policing agencies, in particular.

It is generally argued that America has a pro-gun culture that is deeply embedded in its society (Kocsis, 2015; Schaeffer, 2023) which is responsible, in part, for the relative ease in gun ownership by virtue of a constitutional amendment that enshrines the right to bear arms. The gun lobby is also relatively powerful, with the National Rifle Association (NRA) defending gun rights, sometimes in adversarial ways against healthcare professionals who have called on more gun control. For instance, in a feud with the medical community, the NRA told “anti-gun doctors” to “stay in their lane” after a series of research papers about gun violence, firearm injuries, and deaths, including recommendations to reduce gun violence were published in the peer-reviewed journal Annals of Internal Medicine (Howard, 2018):

“Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane. Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves.”

There are more guns in the US, per capita, than any other nation (Joslyn, 2020) and it is estimated that around 42% of US residents live in a home with at least one firearm (Schaeffer, 2023). In fact, most Americans (61%) agree and say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in the United States (Schaeffer, 2023). Both problems, i.e., pro-gun culture and relative ease in access to guns, have been raised in political debates. For example, some of the above policies like the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban are aimed at reducing handgun access or the type of guns that are accessible to people e.g., semiautomatic assault weapons, respectively. However, one of the challenges is that certain politically oriented interests support this pro-gun culture more than others. For example, among a sample of survey respondents, 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they personally own a gun (compared to only 20% of Democrats and Democrat leaners), and 79% of Republicans and Republican-leaners believed that gun ownership increased safety, while 78% of Democrats said that it actually reduced safety (Schaeffer, 2023).

While the field of public health has advocated many gun-control policies and practices, including continued or increased surveillance (APHA, 2022b), limited research has addressed the concerns with technological surveillance strategies known as gunshot detection systems (GDS) deployed in communities.

In this article, we critically review the literature on these technologies, specifically ShotSpotter®, in the US context and argue that GDS should be avoided as a gun violence prevention strategy, as current data show inconsistent results in gun-related outcomes, warranting further examination and research. We suggest that previously available data using ShotSpotter®, while useful, requires careful analysis, especially to evaluate the potential for harm from such surveillance technology which must be cautiously weighed as it may exceed the benefits of using such technologies. Finally, there needs to be more empirical evidence generated by social scientists not only studying crime research and policy, but also interdisciplinary fields such as public health, prior to wider adoption of such technology across the country. Though legal frameworks and criminal justice studies have examined the implications, prevalence, and general use of ShotSpotter® technology, considerations from the perspective of public health are currently missing. We begin our analysis with the theoretical frameworks and theoretical literature.

Theoretical lenses and theoretical frameworks

The issue of gun violence is complex and plagues the US in unique ways. Theories in critical criminology, criminal justice, and law and society, suggest that gun violence is a result of the material conditions in which people find themselves, and experienced differentially due to the historical legacies of slavery, segregation, structural racism, and discrimination (Bernstein et al., 2019). For example, it is well known that childhood and neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with adolescent engagement in gun violence and firearm injuries except in communities with proximity to employment opportunities and targeted redevelopment, which were protective factors (Dalve et al., 2021; Elsaesser and Nazario, 2022). Often the material and racialized nature of structural and other types of violence are overlooked. In depth research of gun violence, however, is slowly revealing the significance of socioeconomic status concerns and their intersection with race and gender. Researchers have even noted that the candle-light vigils that are held after gun-related incidents have material differences in equipment, technology, and resources that symbolize unequal economic and social power when organized by non-racialized versus racialized communities (ibid).

Most gun violence that is unrelated to suicides occurs in urban communities of color. Activist-scholars suggest that such violence, death and destruction of black and brown bodies has been normalized; the humanity of their victims robbed; and the right to live a life without fear of being shot/killed along with their stories have all been ignored, merely cited as just another statistic, suggesting the unworthiness of their media coverage (Bernstein et al., 2019). Members of these racialized communities; however, have organized themselves to protest and communicate their worthiness, their unity, and their commitment, leading to the Black Lives Matter and other social movements (Bernstein et al., 2019; Tilly, 2003).

The literature further suggests that the narratives about gun violence victims, such as black and brown people, have been misinterpreted such that they have incited and cemented racist ideologies and stereotypes of black/brown criminality (Bernstein et al., 2019; McMillan and Bernstein, 2021). These views have shaped and organized America's color-coded criminal justice system, a system with the highest incarceration rate in the world (Prison Policy Initiative, 2023) characterized by over-policing and disproportionate minority involvement in shootings at the hands of police. In fact, 40% of the unarmed men shot by US police in 2015 were African Americans. The rate of killings at the hands of police for African American men aged 18 to 44 is estimated to be more than three times higher than white men of the same ages (Cazenave, 2018). The problem of minority mythologies has also occurred north of the border in Canada which implemented carding practices (checks of individuals by police similar to stop-and-frisk in the US) against black Canadians until recently (Owusu-Bempah, 2021).

Given these contours, we argue that increased surveillance is an ineffective and problematic solution to the problem of gun violence. Below we refer to an established technology intended to address gun violence that has recently grown in popularity as well as how and why this new technology should be critically examined.

Current research on gunshot detection is insufficient

ShotSpotter Inc. (ShotSpotter) is a publicly-traded company in the US that provides policing services that it calls “the first end-to-end precision policing platform™”—an array of products for investigation, analytics, and case management—which includes a policing search engine and a notable gunshot detection product. ShotSpotter's gunshot detection, known as Respond™ (ShotSpotter, 2023a), is a GDS (Kang and Hudson, 2022). This technology leverages sensors installed on top of buildings and other inconspicuous locations that collect audio signals, record time using timestamps, geocodes/location, and other information, and triangulate the location of gunfire. An algorithm analyzes the audio signals and determines whether the data originated from loud noises like construction, fireworks/firecrackers, or gunfire (Carr and Doleac, 2016). The latter information is immediately sent to local policing agencies. In 2016, ShotSpotter was deployed in over 90 jurisdictions (Carr and Doleac, 2016) and now (2023) is in use in 135 cities of varying sizes in the US. Cities that have implemented this technology range from less than 50,000 residents to large metropolitan cities such as New York City and Chicago (ShotSpotter, 2023b).

While the use of ShotSpotter technology has been supported by city and police officials attempting to address the issue of gun violence, a number of problems persist. One major issue with this cloud-based technology is its high-cost subscription. Cities pay the company between $65,000 and $90,000 dollars annually per square mile for the service and a one-time $10,000 per square mile fee to initiate service (ShotSpotter, 2018). A second major concern relates to its effects on policing and police outcomes. Studies have considered the technology in terms of police effectiveness and workload. For instance, a study conducted in St Louis, Missouri found that the use of this service produced faster response times and times to dispatch for gunshot calls but did not improve resolutions by police in gunshot calls (Choi et al., 2014). Further, according to publicly available data from seven US cities, when police responded to gunshot calls produced by ShotSpotter, they found no evidence of gunshots in 30–70% of calls (Drange, 2016). Studies have also found that the use of this technology does not reduce violent crime generally (Mares and Blackburn, 2020), gun violence specifically, nor did it increase safety in the community (Doucette et al., 2021). ShotSpotter may, however, increase workload for officers (Lawrence et al., 2018; Mares and Blackburn, 2020) which can result in delayed response times and increases in the amount of evidence to be evaluated by police. Taken together, these factors have resulted in limited support of gunshot detection technology (GDT) for both civilians and police (Lawrence et al., 2018).

Third, there is mixed evidence on the accuracy of ShotSpotter in correctly identifying gunshots in areas in which it is deployed. For example, while one study found that ShotSpotter detected 99.6% of gunshots in 90.9% of the locations (Goode, 2012), others found that ShotSpotter detected only 80% of test shots and in 84% of the locations (Mazerolle et al., 2000). Additionally, there is a problem with false positives, meaning that the test result incorrectly indicates the presence of gunshots when in fact none occurred, which have been attributed to loud noises, from various sources like fireworks, construction work, and helicopters. Such false positives have caused some cities, including San Antonio, Texas and Charlotte, North Carolina to end the use of ShotSpotter in their jurisdictions (Burke et al., 2021).

Another problem is that, while research found widespread under-reporting of gun violence, the presence of ShotSpotter did not have statistically significant effects on several outcomes related to gun violence, such as firearm homicides incidence rate ratio (IRR), murder arrest IRR, nor weapons arrest IRR (Doucette et al., 2021). Others have used a case example from the city of Chicago to argue that:

“Despite the increases in the police department budget for personnel and tools like ShotSpotter, the department is not preventing, curbing, or solving more crimes. The City's independent auditor found that ShotSpotter microphones have contributed to a change in police behavior, encouraging more harassing methods and practices from police officers” (Goodwin, 2023: 146).

Accordingly, the above-noted issues raise questions about the costs of surveillance and the return on such investments in communities where resources could be allocated to programs and services shown to prevent gun violence from happening in the first place. This brings us to the concerns raised in the section below.

How does gunshot detection technology impact marginalized and racialized communities? What are the implications on these communities?

One of the problems with rolling out ShotSpotter and other surveillance technology is that its deployment may parallel structural discrimination in our society. For example, “in Chicago, ShotSpotter microphones cover over 80% of the Black community and over 70% of the Latinx community” (Goodwin, 2023: 143). Deployment in these vulnerable urbanized, racialized, and marginalized communities is also problematic because community impact assessments are generally missing. In fact, the targeting of these communities for rolling out ShotSpotter might be counterproductive because minorities do not have high levels of gun ownership −38% of White Americans own guns, which is higher than any other group - even more so in rural communities (47% of adults living in rural areas report personally owning a firearm) (Schaeffer, 2023).

Another problem is that while communities of color may be affected by gun violence, gang violence, and neighborhood safety concerns, consultations with communities should have occurred prior to implementation of ShotSpotter in various municipalities across the United States. There is little evidence that these vulnerable communities were consulted prior to implementation of ShotSpotter. This issue raises concerns as to why these communities were not included in decisions that were affecting them. It also raises questions about the broader issue of the purpose of surveillance. For instance, is ShotSpotter merely a tool that has been developed and deployed to use against populations that have a long history of having surveillance used against them? Poverty (and presumably poverty exacerbated by racism) can impact whether a person is able to avoid certain criminal proceedings and sentences despite the initial crime being similar (Joy and Beddoe, 2019). Similarly, Eubanks (2019) argues that digital tracking and decision-making tools can render which families get to live together and which do not (often poor ones are separated). Such tracking and decision-making tools that are used in social welfare provision have the effect of profiling, policing, and punishing poor Americans (Eubanks, 2019). The work of O’Neil (2016: 21) has also highlighted that technology has “blind spots” and that statistical models and algorithms often reflect the “judgements and priorities” of their creators that also reflect particular assumptions and result in negatively impacting the lives of vulnerable people. Technology has not replaced human bias but merely “camouflaged” it (O’Neil, 2016: 25).

A third concern, which we echo in other parts of this article, is that ShotSpotter may not be an effective solution for addressing gun violence and the high rate of homicides among Black men if the underlying social issues are not addressed first. For example, poverty reduction initiatives, youth employment initiatives, and minimizing contact with the criminal justice system should be prioritized before policing technology is used for surveillance of these communities. Others share the same sentiment:

“[T]hese communities want and deserve public safety; however, throwing dollars at policing and technology for law enforcement has been proven ineffective. Communities want and demand investments into long-term solutions to prevent and end gun violence, such as structural investments into our schools, infrastructure, access to jobs, and healthcare. Not another white-supremacist prescribed answer framed as color blind and neutral that shows up after the harm and violence have been committed” (Goodwin, 2023: 143).

Thus, it might be more appropriate to use ShotSpotter after community consultations have occurred, and in combination with some of the aforementioned initiatives and structural issues are addressed. In any case, more evidence would be required to support such surveillance.

The political economy of law enforcement

The implementation of policing strategies and practices in the US are often financially motivated, from the federal level down to the municipal level, while also having disproportional impacts on minority communities. Regarding federal law enforcement strategy, the war on drugs, which has characterized the US justice system over the past five decades, was facilitated by massive federal law enforcement grants (that continue today) and the availing of military equipment to support state and local police department participation in the war on drugs in what Alexander (2010: 73) called “a massive bribe offered to state and local law enforcement by the federal government.” Further, policy changes were implemented to the civil asset forfeiture system in the US which deepened the economic interests of law enforcement. With massive financial incentives, police focused on the war on drugs to profit off seizures (of cash, vehicles, and homes of drug suspects) and the market itself. Importantly, the focus of these efforts was generally on low-level dealers and users (Alexander, 2010).

Beyond incentives provided to police departments through the war on drugs, another demonstration of financial incentivization that has led to targeting communities of color communities of color is seen in Ferguson, Missouri, where the infamous police killing of Michael Brown took place in 2014. A federal investigation revealed deep-seeded racial bias through police and municipal court practices that overwhelmingly impacted communities of color. For instance, while African Americans made up about 67% of the population in Ferguson, 93% of arrests, 90% of vehicle stops, and 90% of documented uses of force by police were carried out against African Americans. The report described these discriminatory practices as a major function of its focus on generating revenue through the police department (USDOJ, 2015).

In connection with ShotSpotter, it is clear is that surveillance technologies in general, and gunshot detection in particular, have unequal affects across racial groups. Further, given that this technology, which is expensive, is paid for by taxpayers, it must be considered as it relates to possible cuts from other investments, programs, and services that are more fruitful. What happens when such technology needs to be maintained financially? What are the consequences for these communities? These are concerns that require additional research and investigation as the answers are not yet clear.

Gun violence is a complex, interdisciplinary topic and requires an interdisciplinary approach

The issue of gun violence in the US is complex and historically rooted in American culture, which means we must use an interdisciplinary approach to this issue in order to ensure families and communities are safe. We need to emphasize reducing gun injury using current and up-to-date research on the underlying issues that create a culture of violence. This research suggests that there is a need for broader policy interventions, especially those outside of criminal justice. For example, research suggests that childhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with adolescent gun violence (Dalve et al., 2021). Such findings suggest that we should implement poverty-reduction policies and minimize social inequalities and health inequities. Furthermore, less intrusive environmental efforts such as adding street lighting, cleaning up affected neighborhoods, and abandoned lots, may reduce crime and firearm shootings (Barna, 2019).

We also argue that establishing trust and rapport within these communities is important in addition to leveraging neighborhood advocacy groups and community health workers (CHWs), which are known to be best practices. Another option includes recognition of trauma, especially from witnessing or experiencing gun-violence, with an empathetic approach to the issue that does not blame victims. In Pennsylvania, former Governor Tom Wolfe's office introduced the PA-Informed Trauma Plan (PA-ITP) (Jurman, 2020). This policy was developed to address the issue of trauma using a transdisciplinary approach across public and private sectors in the state. It recognizes that many people have experienced adverse events, including adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and many negative behaviors which are symptoms of underlying and unhealed trauma (ibid). Using such a lens, PA-ITP seeks to transform internal systems, and assist external public and private organizations to recognize, understand, minimize, and mitigate the negative effects of trauma on the lives of individuals, families, and communities. It also seeks to help people who have experienced trauma to exercise agency, and access resiliency-building supports and services to improve their physical, social, and emotional health and wellbeing (ibid). PA-ITP also brings people together from various sectors such as: public health, criminal justice, education, law enforcement, human services, community development, workforce development, and others, to provide resources and education to help understand, treat, and heal individuals and communities that are impacted by trauma and adverse experiences. It is inclusive of individuals and communities who are served by systems and supports, so that they have a voice in the development and delivery of policies and resources that affect them. PA-ITP also advocates for preventative measures and early interventions as opposed to after-the-fact, “emotionally and financially expensive, siloed systems of crisis care, chronic illness care, punitive action, stigma, and punishment” which builds a holistic and sustainable system founded on: teaching, promoting and providing opportunities for exercising agency, resistance, resilience, and health and wellbeing opportunities for individuals, families, and communities of all types, and “advancing equity in physical and mental health, fostering inclusion, and promoting thriving, safe, stable, nurturing relationships and communities for all” (ibid). PA-ITP is a good example of taking the right steps in the right direction for many issues that individuals and communities are facing today.

While we advocate the need to address the issue of trauma, including the trauma of witnessing or experiencing gun violence, and the importance of recognizing a holistic approach to the issue that allows for exercise of human agency as advocated above, there are examples in which trauma-informed ACE systems have been problematic, raising several concerns. For instance, an ACE checklist has been developed and misused on racialized and marginalized groups, emphasizing individualized approaches that privilege personal responsibility and psychological dysfunction over structural accounts of cycles of poverty and historical trauma, and endorsement of rescue paradigms to solve the problem of trauma that ultimately shifted power and agency away from those affected by trauma (Joy and Beddoe, 2019). The ACE checklist was originally developed with a US-based population sample consisting of average to well off insured White Americans to assess and understand the links between ACEs and long-term health outcomes, but their use on Indigenous communities, such as Māori children in Aotearoa in New Zealand, has demonstrated that they have failed to consider structural factors such as social exclusion, discrimination, poverty, and failed to recognize these families’ experiences of differences in health and education outcomes and intergenerational welfare dependency as stemming from ongoing impacts of land and language loss, cultural and political alienation, racism and deeply entrenched social inequalities that accompany colonization (Joy and Beddoe, 2019). These families, in addition to experiencing the aforementioned problems, are deeply suspicious of the statutory agency, especially given a history of racism and abuse in state care, especially since welfare austerity policies came together with a demand for a more authoritarian and surveillant approach to address trauma in the name of child protection (Joy and Beddoe, 2019).

White et al., (2019) also consider ACEs to be problematic concepts that prioritize risk and obscure the variability in material and social conditions of people, which have an effect of creating targeted groups by ACE score, the potential to drag families and children into state surveillance, and promote behavior change solutions instead of providing material support to poor families. The current ACEs framework highlight the individual at the expense of the societal and “[…] reifies Western and white-centric structures of family and ways of parenting” (Joy and Beddoe, 2019: 495).

According to White et al., (2019), the absence of poverty in the ACE framework is not merely accidental, but considered to be decentered by design, separated, and reframed as a symptom of a damaged brain and body. For instance, A ‘yes’ answer to ‘were your parents ever separated or divorced?’ constitutes an ACE whether it was amicable or adversarial” and does not consider when it occurred e.g., before the respondent was born, or when they were a toddler, or a teenager (White et al., 2019: 458). “Similarly, the ACE criterion ‘living with anyone who was depressed, mentally ill or suicidal’ takes no account of who this is, severity or duration. ACE advocates are casting the net ever more widely to include more situations, including parental disability, mothers’ health, lack of routine, inter-parental conflict, moving home, and violence involving a sibling or peer” (White et al., 2019: 458).

It is here that we also caution the use of ACEs, and advocate that structural issues, like poverty and discrimination, and its health effects, are not merely markers used in an ACE checklist, nor solved by behavioral modification (which is what biomedical perspectives tend to do), but rather we advocate that the solutions do indeed include addressing inequities in the distribution of social determinants of health, and addressing poverty, racism, and breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty and material deprivation. Tools such as the ACEs checklist are not comprehensive risk assessments; they will need to be expanded to incorporate bullying, neighborhood and school experiences, and socioeconomic status, but more importantly, racism, poverty, colonization, indigenous and other people's experiences (Joy and Beddoe, 2019). With respect to the surveillance of Muslim families, for instance in the case of radicalization, it would be inadequate and inappropriate to use these tools on these families because they do not consider colonization, poverty, or racism (Joy and Beddoe, 2019).

Given the issue of racialized surveillance highlighted previously, and by others (Syed, 2020) the exceptions to the constitutional rights found in the fourth amendment warrants further discussion, especially concerning the impact of this policy on the wellbeing of racialized and marginalized groups. Thus, we recommend that such issues should continue to be analyzed further through interdisciplinary fields such as critical legal studies, criminal justice, and public health to minimize harm.

More evidence on social determinants of health outcomes is needed

While gun violence might seem like a problem stemming from gangs or mass shooting events, data shows that over 61% of fire-arm related deaths in the U.S. are from suicides (Brady Center, 2019; Everytown For Gun Safety, 2019). In fact, foreclosure-related suicides more than tripled during the U.S. housing crisis from 2005 to 2010 (APHA, n.d.). Thus, it makes sense to address social determinants of health (SDH), such as social support, in order for people to access resources to improve mental health and wellbeing. Access to safe housing, transportation, tackling racism, discrimination, and violence, encouraging opportunities for upward social mobility—such as through education, job opportunities, and increased income—have been shown to improve the problem of gun violence in the US (ODPHP, n.d.).

One's relationships with others—friends, family, people in the community, and so on—are crucial for wellbeing. Having positive associations may mitigate the negative impacts of various hazards and challenges, often out of control of the individual, to which one may be exposed (ODPHP, 2023b). Further, one's neighborhood may similarly affect health. Locations characterized by safety risks—like violence—disproportionately impact lower-income individuals and racial/ethnic minorities (ODPHP, 2023a). Consequently, it is also these individuals who are most often subjected to interventions aimed at reducing such risks. The implementation of policing technology, tactics, and practices intended to curb violence are features of this approach, and surveillance plays an important role in it.

Surveillance is foundational to police work. Modern strategies have allowed police to monitor the citizenry without being physically present and various technologies have been indispensable in furthering this vital aim in a modern context (Goold, 2004). Important for our consideration here, there is a stark asymmetry in the ways in which racial and ethnic groups are subjected to surveillance strategies of the state, including ever-evolving policing practices (Herbert et al., 2017). Hendrix et al. (2018) found that racially unequal application of surveillance technologies may reflect mistrust in communities and distance between police department and community racial composition. Given that both risks of and responses to violence are disparately experienced across social categories, it is important to consider the implications of official strategies aimed at reducing violence. Due to their importance for one's well-being, it is imperative that the spaces of relationships and neighborhood/built environment are studied in the context of how they are affected by violence-prevention initiatives and technologies to provide a more wholistic picture of such practices. Ultimately, there is a need for research that explores the perspectives of the populations subjected to this surveillance.

Concluding remarks

In this article, we have highlighted some policies and interventions that have been used to address the problem of gun violence in America, with newer perspectives about the use of gunshot detection technology and how surveillance is, overall, a sensitive topic that draws on critical fields within the social and health sciences. We have identified new and worrisome concerns but also reiterate how they can be addressed, mainly by tackling health inequities through the SDH. Additional research that further explores social inequalities, especially experiences as they relate to gunshot detection, would produce valuable data that is crucial to consider before adopting this or similar surveillance technology.