The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between ** percent and ** percent. In 2024, about ** percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession. Additional information on firearms in the United States Firearms command a higher degree of cultural significance in the United States than any other country in the world. Since the inclusion of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, firearms have held symbolic power beyond their already obvious material power. Despite many Americans being proud gun-owners, a large movement exists within the country in opposition to the freedom afforded to those in possession of these potentially deadly weapons. Those opposed to current gun regulation have sourced their anger from the large number of deaths due to firearms in the country, as well as the high frequency of gun violence apparent in comparison to other developed countries. Furthermore, the United States has fallen victim to a number of mass shootings in the last two decades, most of which have raised questions over the ease at which a person can obtain a firearm. Although this movement holds a significant position in the public political discourse of the United States, meaningful change regarding the legislation dictating the ownership of firearms has not occurred. Critics have pointed to the influence possessed by the National Rifle Association through their lobbying of public officials. The National Rifle Association also lobbies for the interests of firearm manufacturing in the United States, which has continued to rise since a fall in the early 2000s.

This study was undertaken to obtain information on the characteristics of gun ownership, gun-carrying practices, and weapons-related incidents in the United States -- specifically, gun use and other weapons used in self-defense against humans and animals. Data were gathered using a national random-digit-dial telephone survey. The respondents were comprised of 1,905 randomly-selected adults aged 18 and older living in the 50 United States. All interviews were completed between May 28 and July 2, 1996. The sample was designed to be a representative sample of households, not of individuals, so researchers did not interview more than one adult from each household. To start the interview, six qualifying questions were asked, dealing with (1) gun ownership, (2) gun-carrying practices, (3) gun display against the respondent, (4) gun use in self-defense against animals, (5) gun use in self-defense against people, and (6) other weapons used in self-defense. A "yes" response to a qualifying question led to a series of additional questions on the same topic as the qualifying question. Part 1, Survey Data, contains the coded data obtained during the interviews, and Part 2, Open-Ended-Verbatim Responses, consists of the answers to open-ended questions provided by the respondents. Information collected for Part 1 covers how many firearms were owned by household members, types of firearms owned (handguns, revolvers, pistols, fully automatic weapons, and assault weapons), whether the respondent personally owned a gun, reasons for owning a gun, type of gun carried, whether the gun was ever kept loaded, kept concealed, used for personal protection, or used for work, and whether the respondent had a permit to carry the gun. Additional questions focused on incidents in which a gun was displayed in a hostile manner against the respondent, including the number of times such an incident took place, the location of the event in which the gun was displayed against the respondent, whether the police were contacted, whether the individual displaying the gun was known to the respondent, whether the incident was a burglary, robbery, or other planned assault, and the number of shots fired during the incident. Variables concerning gun use by the respondent in self-defense against an animal include the number of times the respondent used a gun in this manner and whether the respondent was hunting at the time of the incident. Other variables in Part 1 deal with gun use in self-defense against people, such as the location of the event, if the other individual knew the respondent had a gun, the type of gun used, any injuries to the respondent or to the individual that required medical attention or hospitalization, whether the incident was reported to the police, whether there were any arrests, whether other weapons were used in self-defense, the type of other weapon used, location of the incident in which the other weapon was used, and whether the respondent was working as a police officer or security guard or was in the military at the time of the event. Demographic variables in Part 1 include the gender, race, age, household income, and type of community (city, suburb, or rural) in which the respondent lived. Open-ended questions asked during the interview comprise the variables in Part 2. Responses include descriptions of where the respondent was when he or she displayed a gun (in self-defense or otherwise), specific reasons why the respondent displayed a gun, how the other individual reacted when the respondent displayed the gun, how the individual knew the respondent had a gun, whether the police were contacted for specific self-defense events, and if not, why not.

This nationally representative, anonymous, household telephone survey was conducted to explore the distribution of privately owned firearms in the United States, as well as firearm acquisition, disposal, and storage in households with guns. The study updates an earlier (1994) study by Cook and Ludwig that examined household firearm ownership in the United States (Cook P.J., Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey of firearms ownership and use. Washington DC: Police Foundation 1997.) Other domains of the survey included (1) past year firearm use both by respondents with firearms in their households and those without (e.g., "In the past 12 months, have you handled any gun"); (2) guns and youth (e.g., "In the last 12 months, have you ever asked another parent whether their home contains guns?"); (3) awareness of and opinions regarding state and federal firearm laws (e.g., "To the best of your knowledge, does your state have a law that holds adults liable for misuse of their guns by children or minors"; "Do you favor or oppose the sale of military style firearms?"); (4) depression and suicide (e.g., "If the Golden Gate Bridge had a barrier to prevent suicide, about how many of the 1,000 jumpers (who have committed suicide by jumping off the bridge since 1937) do you think would have found some other way to kill themselves?") and (5) aggressive driving (e.g., "In the past 12 months, have you made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist"). The survey also included extensive demographic information about the respondent and his or her family. The demographic information that was collected includes respondents' sex, age, race, education level, household income, criminal arrest history, armed forces membership status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), and political philosophy.

In the United States, gun laws vary from one state to the next; whether residents need a permit or a background check to purchase a firearm, whether residents must undergo firearm training before making this purchase, and whether residents can openly carry their guns in public is dependent upon state legislation. As of January 15, 2025, ** U.S. states required background checks and/or permits for the purchase of a handgun. A further ** states had regulations on openly carrying firearms in public; however, only California, Connecticut, Florida, and Illinois had completely prohibited open carry for all firearms. In comparison, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York prohibited open carry for handguns but either did not have regulations in place or required a permit for other types of guns. A constitutional right The Second Amendment of the Constitution, which states that citizens have the right to bear arms, has made it difficult for any gun control legislation to be passed on a national level in the United States. As a result, gun control laws in the U.S. are state-based, and often differ based on political perspectives. States with strong gun laws in place, such as Massachusetts, generally experience less gun violence, however, some states with strong gun laws, such as Maryland, continue to face high rates of gun violence, which has largely been attributed to gun trafficking activity found throughout the nation. A culture of gun owners In comparison to other high-income countries with stricter gun control laws, the United States has the highest gun homicide rate at **** gun homicides per 100,000 residents. However, despite increasing evidence that easy access to firearms, whether legal or illegal, encourages higher rates of gun violence, the United States continues to foster an environment in which owning a firearm is seen as personal freedom. Almost **** of U.S. households have reported owning at least one firearm and ** percent of registered voters in the U.S. were found to believe that it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, compared to ** percent who said it was more important to limit gun ownership.

The dataset is sourced and edited from
data.world

Description is given as below:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Multiple Cause of Death with U.S. - Mexico Border Regions 1999-2019 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released in 2020. Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999-2019, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. U.S. - Mexico border counties has been demarcated as the 44 counties that are located within 100 kilometers (62 miles) defined under the 1983 La Paz Agreement. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-border.html on Nov 6, 2021 12:22:30 AM

Query Parameters: Title: Gun Deaths by County MCD - ICD-10 Codes: W32 (Handgun discharge); W33 (Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge); W34 (Discharge from other and unspecified firearms); X72 (Intentional self-harm by handgun discharge); X73 (Intentional self-harm by rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge); X74 (Intentional self-harm by other and unspecified firearm discharge); X93 (Assault by handgun discharge); X94 (Assault by rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge); X95 (Assault by other and unspecified firearm discharge); Y22 (Handgun discharge, undetermined intent); Y23 (Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge, undetermined intent); Y24 (Other and unspecified firearm discharge, undetermined intent); Y35.0 (Legal intervention involving firearm discharge)

Group By: Year; County Show Totals: True Show Zero Values: False Show Suppressed: False Standard Population: 2000 U.S. Std. Population Calculate Rates Per: 100,000 Rate Options: Default intercensal populations for years 2001-2009 (except Infant Age Groups)

picture sourced from peterplit

Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide (total firearms; handgun; rifle or shotgun; fully automatic firearm; sawed-off rifle or shotgun; firearm-like weapons; other firearms, type unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2018.

Gun ownership is a highly a consequential political behavior. It often signifies a belief about the inadequacy of state-provided security and leads to membership in a powerful political constituency. As a result, it is important to understand why people buy guns and how shifting purchasing patterns affect the composition of the broader gun owning community. We address these topics by exploring the dynamics of the gun-buying spike that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was one of the largest in American history. We find that feelings of diffuse threat prompted many individuals to buy guns. Moreover, we show that new gun owners, even more than buyers who already owned guns, exhibit strong conspiracy and anti-system beliefs. These findings have substantial consequences for the subsequent population of gun owners and provide insight into how social disruptions can alter the nature of political groups.

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.

Description:

This comprehensive dataset offers an in-depth look at gun-related deaths in the United States from 2012 to 2014, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It provides a rich source of information for public health research, policy development, and sociological studies, offering a nuanced understanding of the dynamics and demographics of gun-related fatalities.

Features:

• Year: The year when the death occurred, providing a temporal context.
• Month: The month of the incident, adding more granularity to the timeline.
• Intent: Categorizes the death by intent, such as suicide or homicide, essential for understanding the circumstances.
• Police: Indicates whether a police officer was involved in the death.
• Sex: The gender of the deceased, crucial for demographic analysis.
• Age: The age of the deceased, providing insights into age-related trends.
• Race: The race of the deceased, essential for understanding racial disparities.
• Place: The location of the incident, such as home or street, which can influence the context of the death.
• Education: Educational background of the deceased, offering a socio-economic dimension.

Use Case:

This dataset is highly valuable for tasks such as public health research, policy formulation in gun control, and sociological studies. It can be employed to analyze trends and patterns in gun-related deaths, assist in crafting informed laws and public safety measures, and provide a foundation for educational and awareness initiatives about gun violence and its impact on different demographic groups.

Note: - Entries are organized chronologically, capturing each recorded incident in detail. - The dataset is especially significant for examining year-on-year trends and demographic variances in gun-related fatalities, serving as a critical resource for comprehensive analysis and research.

Information from Bloomington Police Department regarding guns reported stolen.

Key code for Race:

A- Asian/Pacific Island, Non-Hispanic B- African American, Non-Hispanic C- Hawaiian/Other Pacific Island, Hispanic H- Hawaiian/Other Pacific Island, Non-Hispanic I- Indian/Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic K- African American, Hispanic L- Caucasian, Hispanic N- Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic P- Asian/Pacific Island, Hispanic S- Asian, Non-Hispanic T- Asian, Hispanic U- Unknown W- Caucasian, Non-Hispanic

Key Code for Reading Districts:

Example: LB519

L for Law call or incident B stands for Bloomington 5 is the district or beat where incident occurred All numbers following represents a grid sector.

Disclaimer: The Bloomington Police Department takes great effort in making open data as accurate as possible, but there is no avoiding the introduction of errors in this process, which relies on data provided by many people and that cannot always be verified. Information contained in this dataset may change over a period of time. The Bloomington Police Department is not responsible for any error or omission from this data, or for the use or interpretation of the results of any research conducted.

The data on mass shootings is from https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ . This dataset on mass shootings for the period 2014-2023 was provided on Feb 19, 2024 by the Data Manager (Ms. Sharon Williams) at the Gun Violence Archive (https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/) on a data request. Minimal curation was done on this data – the date variable was split into year, month and day. See the codebook for full details.A mass shooting is defined as four or more people injured or killed, because of firearms, excluding the shooter.The curated datasets are included here along with a research question and guiding questions.For information of how this data is collected, go to: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/explainerDefinition for mass shooting and mass murder from the above website is given verbatim below:Mass Shooting Methodology and Reasoning: Mass Shootings are, for the most part an American phenomenon. While they are generally grouped together as one type of incident they are several different types including public shootings, bar/club incidents, family annihilations, drive-by, workplace and those which defy description but with the established foundation definition being that they have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident. GVA also presents the count of Mass Murder which, like the FBI's definition is four or more victims, killed, not including the shooter. Mass Murder by gun is a subset of the Mass Shooting count.

This study contains data from the Northwestern Juvenile Project (NJP) series, a prospective longitudinal study of the mental health needs and outcomes of youth in detention. This study examined the following goals: (1) firearm involvement (access, ownership, and use) during adolescence and young adulthood; (2) perpetration of firearm violence over time; and (3) patterns of firearm victimization (injury and mortality) over time. This study addressed the association between early involvement with firearms and firearm-firearm perpetration and victimization in adulthood. The original sample included 1,829 randomly selected youth, 1,172 males and 657 females, then 10 to 18 years old, enrolled in the study as they entered the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center from 1995 to 1998. Among the sample were 1,005 African Americans, 524 Hispanics, and 296 non-Hispanic white respondents. Participants were tracked from the time they left detention. Re-interviews were conducted regardless of where respondents were living when their follow-up interview was due: in the community, correctional settings, or by telephone if they lived farther than two hours from Chicago.

The global automatic weapons market, valued at $9.47 billion in 2025, is projected to experience robust growth, driven by escalating geopolitical instability, increasing defense budgets across major global powers, and the continuous modernization of armed forces worldwide. The market's Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7.50% from 2025 to 2033 signifies a significant expansion, fueled by demand for advanced automatic rifles, machine guns, and automatic launchers. Technological advancements, such as the integration of smart technologies and improved accuracy, are key trends shaping the industry, while factors like stringent export regulations and ethical concerns regarding the proliferation of lethal weaponry act as restraints. The market is segmented by weapon type (automatic rifles, machine guns, automatic launchers, automatic cannons, and Gatling guns) and platform (land, airborne, and naval), reflecting diverse operational needs across various military branches and applications. North America and Europe currently hold significant market shares due to high defense spending and established manufacturing bases, but the Asia-Pacific region is anticipated to demonstrate strong growth in the coming years, driven by increasing military expenditure and modernization efforts within several nations. Key players like Heckler & Koch, General Dynamics, and Rheinmetall are at the forefront of innovation, constantly striving to meet evolving military requirements and emerging market demands. The competitive landscape is characterized by intense rivalry among established players and emerging manufacturers. Companies are focusing on research and development to enhance the capabilities of automatic weapons, incorporating features such as improved ergonomics, reduced recoil, and increased accuracy. The integration of advanced materials and technologies is further driving innovation within the sector. Growth strategies, including mergers and acquisitions, strategic partnerships, and technological advancements, are being adopted by market leaders to expand their market share and maintain a competitive edge. The demand for lighter, more portable, and technologically advanced weapons is also driving innovation. Regional variations in market dynamics will continue to exist, based on specific geopolitical factors and governmental defense priorities. The projected growth trajectory indicates a significant market opportunity for manufacturers in the coming decade, albeit one subject to the complex interplay of global political and economic factors. This report provides a detailed analysis of the global automatic weapons industry, covering the period 2019-2033, with a focus on market size, growth drivers, challenges, and key players. It leverages a robust dataset, incorporating historical data (2019-2024), a base year of 2025, and forecasts extending to 2033. The report is crucial for stakeholders seeking to understand the dynamics of this complex and regulated sector. High-search-volume keywords like "automatic weapons market," "machine gun market," "military weapons market," "automatic rifle market," and "defense industry analysis" are strategically integrated to maximize online visibility. Recent developments include: March 2023: the Estonian Defense Investment Centre awarded an order to Israel's IWI for the supply of 1,000 NG7 "Negev" light machine weapon systems to the Estonian Army. The "Negevv" machine guns, which are expected to be delivered towards the end of 2023, will take over from MG3 and KSP-58 machines that are already in use. NEGEV 7.62 LMG is a NATO 7.62x51mm Light machine gun, which is used by many countries worldwide., February 2022: The US Army awarded FN America with a USD 49 million contract to supply M240L medium machine guns and titanium receivers. The M240L, which is roughly 18% lighter than the M240B, was adopted in 2010 after a joint effort by FN and the US Army. It is to reduce overall weight while maintaining the performance and durability of the machine gun.. Notable trends are: Land Segment to Witness Highest Growth During the Forecast Period.