> I would expect that 90% of the time (in fact, 87% here) they won't find anything
Not opposed to the hypothesis, but we're talking about the dispatch of armed agents of the state who are permitted to use violence in the discharge of their duties. It's serious, and the facts that no party disputes are that 87% of the time, the destination is indistinguishable from one where no shooting occurred.
Now, the hypothesis that shots are in fact being correctly detected, however frequently there is no observable evedence is plausible and should be considered. This is something that can be investigated with double blind procedures to determine things like the false positive detection rate, or the rate at which police can accurately determine if a shooting occurred after the fact. I suspect that both of these rates are known and do not support the use of this product, but I am very open to saying I'm wrong if presented with more information.
This all just looks like your bog standard bullshit-product-sold-to-the-government con. Government officers (frequently police and the military) buy into a bullshit product because it justifies their operations and confirms their worldview. Up to the early 2000, the big one was a magic explosives and contraband detection wand that claimed to alert the operator via metaphysical energy when it was placed near any kind of explosive or contraband material. These products are largely psychological aids that help the operator justify whatever it is they are doing.
>but we're talking about the dispatch of armed agents of the state who are permitted to use violence in the discharge of their duties.
You could say the same thing about a police officer being sent to direct traffic at a busy intersection, or going to a school for career day. Just because the police officer is an armed agent of the state permitted to use violence doesn't mean the police officer shouldn't do things that aren't very serious.
Not opposed to the hypothesis, but we're talking about the dispatch of armed agents of the state who are permitted to use violence in the discharge of their duties. It's serious, and the facts that no party disputes are that 87% of the time, the destination is indistinguishable from one where no shooting occurred.
Now, the hypothesis that shots are in fact being correctly detected, however frequently there is no observable evedence is plausible and should be considered. This is something that can be investigated with double blind procedures to determine things like the false positive detection rate, or the rate at which police can accurately determine if a shooting occurred after the fact. I suspect that both of these rates are known and do not support the use of this product, but I am very open to saying I'm wrong if presented with more information.
This all just looks like your bog standard bullshit-product-sold-to-the-government con. Government officers (frequently police and the military) buy into a bullshit product because it justifies their operations and confirms their worldview. Up to the early 2000, the big one was a magic explosives and contraband detection wand that claimed to alert the operator via metaphysical energy when it was placed near any kind of explosive or contraband material. These products are largely psychological aids that help the operator justify whatever it is they are doing.