1) Data Introduction • The Gun Violence Dataset in US is a tabularized data set for gun violence analysis that includes the date, location, victim and suspect information, and geographic coordinates of major 2024 shootings across the U.S.

2) Data Utilization (1) Gun Violence Dataset in US has characteristics that: • Each row contains key information about the shooting, including incident-specific ID, date of occurrence, state and city/county, number of deaths and injuries, suspects (death, injury, arrest), latitude, and longitude. • Data is designed to analyze the distribution of gun incidents and the extent of damage by month and region, and spatial analysis through geographic coordinates is also possible. (2) Gun Violence Dataset in US can be used to: • Analysis of shooting trends by region: Use data by location, magnitude of damage, and time to visualize and analyze the regional and temporal distribution and risk areas of gun violence. • Establishing public safety policies and prevention strategies: Based on victim and suspect information and incident characteristics, it can be used to establish effective gun control, prevention policies, resource allocation strategies, and more.

Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 7,159 homicides in 2023. This is followed by firearms of an unstated type, with 5,295 cases in that year. Why do murders happen in the U.S.? While most of the time the circumstances of murders in the U.S. remain unknown, homicides due to narcotics come in as the second most common circumstance – making them more common than, for example, gang killings. Despite these gruesome facts, the violent crime rate has fallen significantly since 1990, and the United States is much safer than it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Knife crime vs disease: Leading causes of death The death rate in the U.S. had hovered around the same level since 1990 until there was a large increase due to the COVID-19 pandemic in recent years. Heart disease, cancer, and accidents were the three leading causes of death in the country in 2022. The rate of death from heart disease is significantly higher than the homicide rate in the United States, at 167.2 deaths per 100,000 population compared to a 5.7 homicides per 100,000. Given just 1,562 murders were caused by knife crime, it is fair to say that heart disease is a far bigger killer in the U.S.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 7:11 AM EASTERN ON DEC. 1

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.

In the United States, Black people have higher rates of gun homicide than White people across all age groups. As of 2022, gun homicide rates were highest among Black people aged between 15 and 24 years, at ***** gun homicides per 100,000 of the population. In comparison, there were only **** gun homicides per 100,000 of the White population within this age range. However, the risk for gun homicide was greatest among all adolescents and adults between the ages of 15 to 44 in that year. The impact of guns on young Americans In the last few years, firearms have become the leading cause of death for American children and teenagers aged one to 19 years old, accounting for more deaths than car crashes and diseases. School shootings also remain on the rise recently, with the U.S. recording ** times as many school shootings than other high-income nations from 2009 to 2018. Black students in particular experience a disproportionately high number of school shootings relative to their population, and K-12 teachers at schools made up mostly of students of color are more likely to report feeling afraid that they or their students would be a victim of attack or harm. The right to bear arms Despite increasingly high rates of gun-related violence, gun ownership remains a significant part of American culture, largely due to the fact that the right to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution. Although firearms are the most common murder weapon used in the U.S., accounting for approximately ****** homicides in 2022, almost **** of American households have at least one firearm in their possession. Consequently, it is evident that firearms remain easily accessible nationwide, even though gun laws may vary from state to state. However, the topic of gun control still causes political controversy, as the majority of Republicans agree that it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while Democrats are more inclined to believe that it is more important to limit gun ownership.

This data was obtained from https://mappingpoliceviolence.us/.

Mapping Police Violence is a 501(c)(3) organization that publishes the most comprehensive and up-to-date data on police violence in America to support transformative change.

This is a database set on openly sharing information on police violence in America.

Some information on this data according to their website: Our data has been meticulously sourced from official police use of force data collection programs in states like California, Texas and Virginia, combined with nationwide data from The Gun Violence Archive and the Fatal Encounters database, two impartial crowdsourced databases. We've also done extensive original research to further improve the quality and completeness of the data; searching social media, obituaries, criminal records databases, police reports and other sources to identify the race of 90 percent of all victims in the database.

We believe the data represented on this site is the most comprehensive accounting of people killed by police since 2013. Note that the Mapping Police Violence database is more comprehensive than the Washington Post police shootings database: while WaPo only tracks cases where people are fatally shot by on-duty police officers, our database includes additional incidents such as cases where police kill someone through use of a chokehold, baton, taser or other means as well as cases such as killings by off-duty police. A recent report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated approximately 1,200 people were killed by police between June, 2015 and May, 2016. Our database identified 1,100 people killed by police over this time period. While there are undoubtedly police killings that are not included in our database (namely, those that go unreported by the media), these estimates suggest that our database captures 92% of the total number of police killings that have occurred since 2013. We hope these data will be used to provide greater transparency and accountability for police departments as part of the ongoing work to end police violence in America.

Context

There's currently a lack of large and easily-accessible amounts of detailed data on gun violence.

Content

This project aims to change that; we make a record of more than 260k gun violence incidents, with detailed information about each incident, available in CSV format. We hope that this will make it easier for data scientists and statisticians to study gun violence and make informed predictions about future trends.

The CSV file contains data for all recorded gun violence incidents in the US between January 2013 and March 2018, inclusive.

Acknowledgements

Where did you get the data?

The data was downloaded from gunviolencearchive.org. From the organization's description:

Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online.

How did you get the data?

Because GVA limits the number of incidents that are returned from a single query, and because the website's "Export to CSV" functionality was missing crucial fields, it was necessary to obtain this dataset using web scraping techniques.

Stage 1: For each date between 1/1/2013 and 3/31/2018, a Python script queried all incidents that happened at that particular date, then scraped the data and wrote it to a CSV file. Each month got its own CSV file, with the exception of 2013, since not many incidents were recorded from then.

Stage 2: Each entry was augmented with additional data not directly viewable from the query results page, such as participant information, geolocation data, etc.

Stage 3: The entries were sorted in order of increasing date, then merged into a single CSV file.

Inspiration

I believe there are plenty of ways this dataset can be put to good use. If you have an interesting idea or feel like messing around with the data, then go for it.

I was originally inspired to compile it in the wake of the Parkland shooting and the mass media coverage that followed. Reports like this and this showed that Nikolas Cruz had exhibited plenty of warning signs on social media before the shooting; what if we could build a machine learning system that preemptively detected such signs?

Context

There's currently a lack of large and easily-accessible amounts of detailed data on gun violence.

Content

The CSV file contains data for all recorded gun violence incidents in the US between January 2013 and March 2018, inclusive.

Acknowledgements

The data was downloaded from gunviolencearchive.org. From the organization's description:

Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online.

Inspiration

In light of recent mass shootings in Ohio and Florida, it is time for everyone to reexamine the issue of gun control in the United States.

Parents, siblings, partners, and friends are often the first people to suspect a loved one is on the trajectory towards targeted violence or terrorism. These intimate bystanders are well positioned to facilitate prevention efforts if there are known and trusted reporting pathways to law enforcement or other resources. Little is known in the United States about the reporting processes for intimate bystanders to targeted violence or terrorism. This study is built on previous Australian and United Kingdom studies to understand the processes of intimate bystanders in the United States, in order to inform new, localized and contextually-sensitive understandings of and approaches to community reporting issues. Qualitative-quantitative interviews were conducted from March 2021 to July 2021 virtually over Zoom with 123 community members living in California and Illinois. The researchers describe their perspectives on barriers, facilitators, and pathways. The study sought to enhance prior studies with a larger and more demographically-diverse sample. It included a focus on ISIS/Al-Qa'eda-inspired foreign-terrorism, White Power movement-inspired domestic terrorism, and--of particular relevance to the US---non-ideologically motivated targeted, workplace violence.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey is an ongoing, nationally representative survey that assesses experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence among adult women and men in the United States. The survey is focused exclusively on violence and collects information about: Sexual violence by any perpetrator, including information related to rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion and unwanted sexual contact. Stalking, including the use of technologies such as text messages, emails, monitoring devices (e.g., cameras and GPS, or global positioning system devices), by perpetrators known and unknown to the victim. Psychological aggression by an intimate partner, including information on expressive forms of aggression and coercive control. Physical violence by an intimate partner. In addition to collecting lifetime and 12-month prevalence data on sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence, the survey collects information on the age at the time of the first victimization, demographic characteristics of respondents, characteristics of perpetrators (age, sex, race/ethnicity, relationship to the respondent) and detailed information about the context in which these types of violence occur. The primary objectives of the survey are to describe the prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence in the United States; who is most likely to experience these forms of violence; the context in which sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence are experienced; and the consequences and impacts of these forms of violence. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish, ensuring inclusivity and broader participation. The documentation package includes both the English and Spanish versions of the questionnaire. The data file contains 30,947 observations and 428 variables.

National IPV/SV Survey

Examining Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence in the United States

By Health [source]

About this dataset

This NISVS Intimate and Sexual Violence Survey dataset captures detailed information on intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence experiences among U.S. adults aged 18 years or older. It contains statistics on the prevalence of lifetime IPV, as well as additional data on the types of intimate partner violence (psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual assault), and details more recent IPV experience; including experiencing sexual coercion or being forced to do sexual acts against one's will. Additionally, it records measures of the frequency of experiencing different forms psychological abuse; such as feeling scared by a partner's use or threat of force and feeling like one had no power over important issues in their life due to an abusive partner. Further characteristics such as respondent demographics are also included in the dataset to further explore disparities around incidence of IPV and SVP experience across various populations. With a better understanding about these trends, policy makers can take targeted action towards creating responsible legislation that addresses this pervasive problem in our society today

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides data from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), which collects information about intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV). The survey was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2010-2012. This dataset includes key statistics from the surveys, with an emphasis on IPV, SV, and other types of intimate partner violence.

To get started with this dataset, take a look at the variables included in it. There are several types of variables – demographic characteristics like age; report tables that include numbers associated with different forms of IPV or SV; summary charts that show percentages associated with certain activities or events; and full reports detailing information on various topics related to IPV/SV.

For more detailed analysis, you can explore specific characteristics in different subsets of this data. For example, you might look at patterns by gender, race/ethnicity or geography. Or you could compare the frequency of certain forms of abuse over time across different groups who participated in the survey. You could also use visualizations like line graphs or scatter plots to reveal patterns between variables that were not immediately obvious when looking at only raw numbers or percentages in tables.

When analyzing results using this dataset you’ll want to be sure to take into account any potential limitations due to sampling methods used when collecting this data as well as any issues caused by variations across states’ reporting standards depending on their understanding of specific terms included in their formulation of reporting questions for participation in this survey project. It is important to keep these potential sources for variations alive when creating research questions and hypothesis associated with your own analyses related to choosing appropriate indicators as partof developing effective measuresfor comparison purposesacross differentpartici-pants participatinginthisdataset environment .

Ultimately though we hope that this dataset serves as a helpful resource when evaluating trends surrounding IPV/SV both nationally among all states included alongwith representativelocally relevantpopu- lation groups in order to promote awareness needed around monitoring preventative measures which deter people from engaginginbehaviors leading toparticularoutcomes identified through aninterpretationofthisdataset source material available via Kaggle platform interface provided hereinby subjectexpertiseand resources available within academic literature used foranalyzingdata captured within NISVS Inti/Sexualviolence Surv collection according prescribed analytical protocols suggested here- within forthiguidebooklet offeredtosupportsuchinquiries related

Research Ideas

• Examining county-level variations of national intimate partner and sexual violence incidents over time.
• Analyzing the demographics of individuals affected by such violence to better understand marginalized identities and communities at risk.
• Investigating how intimate partner and sexual violence intersects with other risk factors, including income, location, age, gender identity, race/ethnicity etc., in order to identify potential disparities in service a...

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The study constructed a comprehensive, longitudinal dataset of all counties nested within U.S. States from 1970 to 2012. The study's main purpose was to facilitate research that would further understanding on firearm legislation and its impacts on violence. This comprehensive data collection effort included information on firearm legislation implemented across U.S. States over time in combination with multiple measures of firearm-related violence and injury. Moreover, to better understand the conditions under which firearm legislation is more or less effective, incorporation of county characteristics allowed for examination of whether the effectiveness of state-level firearm legislation depends upon particular characteristics of counties. The researchers conducted a secondary analysis utilizing a variety of archived external government and census sources. The Study's Dataset Include two Stata Files: CJRC_firearms_research.dta (95 Variables, 129,027 Cases) state_law_data.dta (19 Variables, 2,168 Cases)

The Mayor's Office to End Domestic and Gender-Based Violence (ENDGBV) develops policies and programs, provides training and prevention education, conducts research and evaluations, performs community outreach, and operates the New York City Family Justice Centers. The office collaborates with City agencies and community stakeholders to ensure access to inclusive services for survivors of domestic and gender-based violence (GBV) services. GBV can include intimate partner and family violence, elder abuse, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking. ENDGBV operates the New York City Family Justice Centers. These co‐located multidisciplinary domestic violence service centers provide vital social service, civil legal and criminal justice assistance for survivors of intimate partner violence and their children under one roof. The Brooklyn Family Justice Center opened in July 2005; the Queens Family Justice Center opened in July 2008; the Bronx Family Justice Center opened in April 2010; Manhattan Family Justice Center opened in December 2013 and Staten Island Family Justice Center opened in June 2015. OCDV also has a Policy and Training Institute that provides trainings on intimate partner violence to other City agencies. The New York City Healthy Relationship Academy, with is part of the Policy and Training Institute, provides peer lead workshops on healthy relationships and teen dating violence to individuals between the age of 13 and 24, their parents and staff of agencies that work with youth in that age range. The dataset is collected to produce an annual fact sheet on intimate partner violence in New York City. The fact sheet is produced annually by the end of February and is placed on the ENDGBV website. The criminal justice numbers (IPV Homicides, DIRs) are provided by the New York City Police Department; the NYC Domestic Violence Hotline call numbers are provided by Safe Horizon, which is contracted by the City to manage the hotline. The other data is provided by ENDGBV.

Aggregated information of over three thousand incidents of gun violence within the United States from Jan 2014 through Dec 2021.

Address of the incident is mentioned along with the number of causalities or injuries.

To see further details of the incident including participants, incident details and news sources use: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/{incident_id}.

This data along with the latest events available at the Gun Violence Archive.

Between 1982 and August 2025, 84 out of the 155 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by white shooters. By comparison, the perpetrator was Black in 26 mass shootings and Latino in 12. When calculated as percentages, this amounts to 54 percent, 17 percent, and eight percent, respectively. Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population Broadly speaking, the racial distribution of mass shootings mirrors the racial distribution of the U.S. population as a whole. While a superficial comparison of the statistics seems to suggest African American shooters are over-represented and Latino shooters underrepresented, the fact that the shooter’s race is unclear in around nine percent of cases, along with the different time frames over which these statistics are calculated, means no such conclusions should be drawn. Conversely, looking at the mass shootings in the United States by gender clearly demonstrates that the majority of mass shootings are carried out by men. Mass shootings and mental health With no clear patterns between the socio-economic or cultural background of mass shooters, increasing attention has been placed on mental health. Analysis of the factors Americans considered to be to blame for mass shootings showed 80 percent of people felt the inability of the mental health system to recognize those who pose a danger to others was a significant factor. This concern is not without merit – in over half of the mass shootings since 1982, the shooter showed prior signs of mental health issues, suggesting improved mental health services may help deal with this horrific problem. Mass shootings and guns In the wake of multiple mass shootings, critics have sought to look beyond the issues of shooter identification and their influences by focusing on their access to guns. The majority of mass shootings in the U.S. involve firearms which were obtained legally, reflecting the easy ability of Americans to purchase and carry deadly weapons in public. Gun control takes on a particular significance when the uniquely American phenomenon of school shootings is considered. The annual number of incidents involving firearms at K-12 schools in the U.S. was over 100 in each year since 2018. Conversely, similar incidents in other developed countries exceptionally rare, with only five school shootings in G7 countries other than the U.S. between 2009 and 2018.

The purpose of this study was to investigate longitudinally the developmental antecedents of physical and sexual violence against young women, using a theoretically based multicausal model that included characteristics related to the victim, the perpetrator, and the environment. The researchers used a classic longitudinal design, replicated over two cohorts (those born in 1972 and 1973), each assessed first when 18 years old, and again when 19, 20, 21, and 22 years old. The first survey (Part 1, Female Data) collected information on the respondent's experiences of sexual assault from age 14 to the present (age 18). Other questions focused on the kind of person the respondent thought she was, how much of an influence religion had on the way she chose to spend each day, her dating behavior during high school, the number of times the respondent had used behavior such as discussing issues relatively calmly, arguing, sulking, stomping out of the room, or threatening to hit, with a romantic partner during high school, and how frequently romantic partners used these types of behavior with the respondent. Other items elicited information on the number of women the respondent knew who had been sexually victimized, whether men forced them to engage in sexual activities, the nature of the respondent's sexual experience from the time she was 14 to the present, the respondent's age when each experience occurred, if the respondent or the other person was using drugs or alcohol when it happened, if the respondent was injured, and whom the respondent told about the experience. Information was collected on sexual abuse prior to the age of 14 as well. The respondent was also asked to describe how often her parents or stepparents had administered physical blows (i.e., hitting, kicking, throwing someone down), whether someone had fondled her in a sexual way, whether a male had attempted intercourse with the respondent, the relationship between the respondent and the perpetrator, the respondent's age when the experience occurred, who the other person was, who initiated the date or paid for the food, drinks, or tickets, whether the respondent or the other person was using drugs or alcohol, the respondent's opinions about men and women in America (i.e., if the respondent agreed or disagreed that chivalrous gestures toward women on the part of men should be encouraged), whether the respondent had engaged in sexual intercourse when she did not want to because a male threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm, holding her down, etc.), and the respondent's drug and alcohol use. The subsequent surveys contained measures of sexual assault during each year of college (i.e., since the previous survey). Questions asked in subsequent surveys were similar to those in the first survey, and the responses are all included in Part 1. Questions posed to males (Part 2, Male Data) included the number of women the respondent had sexual intercourse with, how often the respondent heard talk that speculated how a particular woman would be in bed, reasons the respondent engaged in sexual activity, number of times the respondent engaged in sexual intercourse when a woman didn't want to, and questions similar to those in Part 1 with the respondent as the perpetrator. Demographic information in Part 1 and Part 2 describes the female or the male respondent's education, race, religious preference, sexual orientation, and marital or relationship status.

In 2023, the FBI reported that there were 9,284 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,289 white murder victims. In comparison, there were 554 murder victims of unknown race and 586 victims of another race. Victims of inequality? In recent years, the role of racial inequality in violent crimes such as robberies, assaults, and homicides has gained public attention. In particular, the issue of police brutality has led to increasing attention following the murder of George Floyd, an African American who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Studies show that the rate of fatal police shootings for Black Americans was more than double the rate reported of other races. Crime reporting National crime data in the United States is based off the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new crime reporting system, which requires law enforcement agencies to self-report their data in detail. Due to the recent implementation of this system, less crime data has been reported, with some states such as Delaware and Pennsylvania declining to report any data to the FBI at all in the last few years, suggesting that the Bureau's data may not fully reflect accurate information on crime in the United States.

One can easily find postings, articles, etc… in social network about mass shooting, gun violence, it's frequency, impacts, severity, and so on. However, one might be curious in its details of what the root causes are? where are common incident areas? Are those shooters mostly have mental health problem or some kind of severe psycho as everyone has mentioned about? What are those shooters features? How are their behaviors, age range, race, etc? or is there any correlational relationships between those features that helps us understand more about them and their motives? By having more insight of US Mass shooting cases, its common root cause, features of shooter and other related aspects, it might help every single individual to recognize sign of a mass shooter or can even have solutions on education, mental balance support, and obligation for preventing such tragedy to contribute to a better healthier society. For my world fellow friends, hope you all have a quality data source for your references, analysis and learning.

Content

This data covers raw data of mass shooting cases in US from 1966-2019. In fact it does not cover all cases but it gives analyst/ viewer a general viewpoint of gun violence situation in US. For my analysis on this data please find in links below: • US Mass Shooting 1: Overview Analysis and Root Cause 1966-2019 • US Mass Shooting 1: Shooter’s Analysis 1966-2019

Data structure shown in sheet "Data Structure". Data includes: • Fields: 24 • Rows: 339 (339 cases) • Data coverage: partial (not included all mass shooting cases but typical ones) data from 1966-2019 • Cleaned: Yes • Data cleaning procedure: click here • Original data source: (1) https://www.kaggle.com/zusmani/us-mass-shootings-last-50-years?select=Mass+Shootings+Dataset.csv , (2) https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ • Original data problems: Missing data, duplicate data, null data, partial or incomplete data (incomplete location name, missing latitude, longtitude, etc.), incorrect information (number of victims, etc.).

Acknowledgements

Thanks Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani and motherjones.com team for your contribution and wish everyone all the best.

The Washington Post spent a year determining how many children have been affected by school shootings, beyond just those killed or injured. To do that, reporters attempted to identify every act of gunfire at a primary or secondary school during school hours since the Columbine High massacre on April 20, 1999. Using Nexis, news articles, open-source databases, law enforcement reports, information from school websites, and calls to schools and police departments, The Post reviewed more than 1,000 alleged incidents, but counted only those that happened on campuses immediately before, during or just after classes. Shootings at after-hours events, accidental discharges that caused no injuries to anyone other than the person handling the gun, and suicides that occurred privately or posed no threat to other children were excluded. Gunfire at colleges and universities, which affects young adults rather than kids, also was not counted. After finding more than 200 incidents of gun violence that met The Post’s criteria, reporters organized them in a database for analysis. Because the federal government does not track school shootings, it’s possible that the database does not contain every incident that would qualify. To calculate how many children were exposed to gunfire in each school shooting, The Post relied on enrollment figures and demographic information from the U.S. Education Department, including the Common Core of Data and the Private School Universe Survey. The analysis used attendance figures from the year of the shooting for the vast majority of the schools. Credits: Research and Reporting: John Woodrow Cox, Steven Rich and Allyson Chiu Production and Presentation: John Muyskens and Monica Ulmanu Per the terms of the Creative Commons license, CISER notes that: 1. the license for this dataset is attached as the files license.htm and license.pdf. A brief version of the Creative Commons license is also included but users should familiarize themselves with the full license before using. 2. the licensed material is located at https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-school-shootings 3. Several of the files have been modified from the format presented at the above url including creating pdf versions of the documentation files and adding SAS, Stata, and SPSS versions through the use of StatTransfer 13. 4. These adapted versions of the original files are also released through the same Creative Commons license as the original with the same license elements.

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) is a US-registered non-profit whose mission is to provide the highest quality real-time data on political violence and demonstrations globally. The information collected includes the type of event, its date, the location, the actors involved, a brief narrative summary, and any reported fatalities. ACLED users rely on our robust global dataset to support decision-making around policy and programming, accurately analyze political and country risk, support operational security planning, and improve supply chain management.ACLED’s transparent methodology, expert team composed of 250 individuals speaking more than 70 languages, real-time coding system, and weekly update schedule are unrivaled in the field of data collection on conflict and disorder. Global Coverage: We track political violence, demonstrations, and strategic developments around the world, covering more than 240 countries and territories.Published Weekly: Our data are collected in real time and published weekly. It is the only dataset of its kind to provide such a high update frequency, with peer datasets most often updating monthly or yearly.Historical Data: Our dataset contains at least two full years of data for all countries and territories, with more extensive coverage available for multiple regions.Experienced Researchers: Our data are coded by experienced researchers with local, country, and regional expertise and language skills.Thorough Data Collection and Sourcing: Pulling from traditional media, reports, local partner data, and verified new media, ACLED uses a tailor-made sourcing methodology for individual regions/countries.Extensive Review Process: Our data go through an exhaustive multi-stage quality assurance process to ensure their accuracy and reliability. This process includes both manual and automated error checking and contextual review.Clean, Standardized, and Validated: Our data can be easily connected with internal dashboards through our API or downloaded through the Data Export Tool on our website.Resources Available on ESRI’s Living AtlasACLED data are available through the Living Atlas for the most recent 12 month period. The data are mapped to the centroid of first administrative divisions (“admin1”) within countries (e.g., states, districts, provinces) and aggregated by month. Variables in the data include:The number of events per admin1-month, disaggregated by event type (protests, riots, battles, violence against civilians, explosions/remote violence, and strategic developments)A conservative estimate of reported fatalities per admin1-monthThe total number of distinct violent actors active in the corresponding admin1 for each monthThis Living Atlas item is a Web Map, which provides a pre-configured view of ACLED event data in a few layers:ACLED Event Counts layer: events per admin1-month, styled by predominant event type for each location.ACLED Violent Actors layer: the number of distinct violent actors per admin1-month.ACLED Fatality Estimates layer: the estimated number of fatalities from political violence per admin1-month.These layers are based on the ACLED Conflict and Demonstrations Event Data Feature Layer, which has the same data but only a basic default styling that is similar to the Event Counts layer. The Web Map layers are configured with a time-slider component to account for the multiple months of data per admin1 unit. These indicators are also available in the ACLED Conflict and Demonstrations Data Key Indicators Group Layer, which includes the same preconfigured layers but without the time-slider component or background layers.Resources Available on the ACLED WebsiteThe fully disaggregated dataset is available for download on ACLED's website including:Date (day, month, year)Actors, associated actors, and actor typesLocation information (ADMIN1, ADMIN2, ADMIN3, location and geo coordinates)A conservative fatality estimateDisorder type, event types, and sub-event typesTags further categorizing the data A notes column providing a narrative of the event For more information, please see the ACLED Codebook.To explore ACLED’s full dataset, please register on the ACLED Access Portal, following the instructions available in this Access Guide. Upon registration, you’ll receive access to ACLED data on a limited basis. Commercial users have access to 3 free data downloads company-wide with access to up to one year of historical data. Public sector users have access to 6 downloads of up to three years of historical data organization-wide. To explore options for extended access, please reach out to our Access Team (access@acleddata.com).With an ACLED license, users can also leverage ACLED’s interactive Global Dashboard and check in for weekly data updates and analysis tracking key political violence and protest trends around the world. ACLED also has several analytical tools available such as our Early Warning Dashboard, Conflict Alert System (CAST), and Conflict Index Dashboard.

There has been little research on United States homicide rates from a long-term perspective, primarily because there has been no consistent data series on a particular place preceding the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which began its first full year in 1931. To fill this research gap, this project created a data series on homicides per capita for New York City that spans two centuries. The goal was to create a site-specific, individual-based data series that could be used to examine major social shifts related to homicide, such as mass immigration, urban growth, war, demographic changes, and changes in laws. Data were also gathered on various other sites, particularly in England, to allow for comparisons on important issues, such as the post-World War II wave of violence. The basic approach to the data collection was to obtain the best possible estimate of annual counts and the most complete information on individual homicides. The annual count data (Parts 1 and 3) were derived from multiple sources, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports and Supplementary Homicide Reports, as well as other official counts from the New York City Police Department and the City Inspector in the early 19th century. The data include a combined count of murder and manslaughter because charge bargaining often blurs this legal distinction. The individual-level data (Part 2) were drawn from coroners' indictments held by the New York City Municipal Archives, and from daily newspapers. Duplication was avoided by keeping a record for each victim. The estimation technique known as "capture-recapture" was used to estimate homicides not listed in either source. Part 1 variables include counts of New York City homicides, arrests, and convictions, as well as the homicide rate, race or ethnicity and gender of victims, type of weapon used, and source of data. Part 2 includes the date of the murder, the age, sex, and race of the offender and victim, and whether the case led to an arrest, trial, conviction, execution, or pardon. Part 3 contains annual homicide counts and rates for various comparison sites including Liverpool, London, Kent, Canada, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco.