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.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 2:11 PM EASTERN ON OCT. 15

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.

Data tables relating to offences involving weapons as recorded by police and hospital episode statistics.

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 dataset was retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division website on February 29, 2008. "This table provides the type of weapons used in murder offenses. The data are based on the aggregated data from agencies within each state for which supplemental homicide data (i.e., weapon information) were reported to the FBI. The table also includes a breakdown of the types of firearms used in murders (i.e., handguns, rifles, shotguns, or unknown firearms)". "The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". Estimated population was added for each state for 2006 that appeared on Table 5 of the data from 2006. Total murders from 2005 and 2004 were also included. Please see the Data Declaration for further information on the data set. Values of -1 represent no value.

This dataset was retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division website on February 29, 2008. "This table provides the estimated number of offenses and the actual number of offenses reported in the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), cities outside metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan counties, and the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) for each grouping, and the estimated population for each state" however to simplify the dataset, I only included the state total and the rate for each state. Data for Puerto Rico was not included. "The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". Please see the Data Declaration for further information on the data set. Values of -1 represent no value.

This dataset was retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division website on February 29, 2008. "This table provides arrest data for 29 separate UCR offenses for each state for 2006". The table provides data for total arrests by class of crime. "The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". Estimated population was added for each state for 2006 that appeared on Table 5 of the data from 2006. Please see the Data Declaration for further information on the data set. Values of -1 represent no value.

Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide (total methods used; shooting; stabbing; beating; strangulation; fire (burns or suffocation); other methods used; methods used unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2024.

Descriptive statistics of average quarterly gun crime rate, January 2014-June 2023.

This dataset looks at age and juvenile offender status as a means of restricting the purchase and possession of firearms in the USA as of 12.31.2005. This data displays the minimum age you must be to purchase/possess a handgun or a long gun in every state in the USA. It also displays if a state restricts juvenile offenders from purchasing/possessing a firearm, handguns or long guns. Also provided in the data is the statute within the States legislation that states the firearm purchase/possession restriction. Handgun: A firearm that has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Long gun: A firearm with a barrel extended to around 30 inches to improve accuracy and range, and commonly with a shoulder butt, designed to be fired with two hands, such as a rifle or shotgun. This data comes from Survey of State Procedures Related to Firearm Transfers, 2005. The Survey provides an overview of the firearm check procedures in each State and State interaction with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operated by the FBI. The report summarizes issues about State procedures, including persons prohibited from purchasing firearms, restoration of rights of purchase to prohibited persons, permits, prohibited firearms, waiting periods, fees, and appeals. Supplemental tables contain data on 2005 applications to purchase firearms and rejections, as well as tabular presentations of State-by-State responses. This is one of a series of reports published from the BJS Firearm Inquiry Statistics (FIST) project, managed under the BJS National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP). This is a web only document.

This dataset shows City level data for all over the United States, and has various attributes for different crimes. Cities are shown as Latitude and longitude points. Attributes include murder, manslaughter, violent crimes, arson, motor vehicle theft, property crimes, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft, and rape. Data was provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Source: FBI URL: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_08.html

Violence committed by and against juveniles was the focus of this study. Two groups were examined: incarcerated (criminally active) juveniles and students in inner-city high schools, since these youths are popularly considered to engage in and experience violence (especially gun-related violence), to belong to urban street gangs, and to participate in the drug trafficking thought to lead to excessive gun violence. Self-administered questionnaires were completed by 835 male inmates in six correctional facilities and 1,663 male and female students from ten inner-city high schools in California, Illinois, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Data collection took place during January through April of 1991. To maximize response rates, inducements of five dollars were offered to the inmates, Spanish-language versions of the questionnaire were provided to inmates who preferred them, and personal interviews were conducted with inmates whose reading skills were less than sufficient to complete the questionnaire on their own. In four schools, principals permitted the inducements to be offered to students to participate in the study. As with the inmate survey, a Spanish-language version of the questionnaire was provided to students who preferred it. The questionnaires covered roughly the same core topics for both inmates and students. Items included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, school experiences, gun ownership, gun use for several types of firearms, gun acquisition patterns, gun-carrying habits, use of other weapons, gang membership and gang activities, self-reported criminal histories, victimization patterns, drug use, alcohol use, and attitudes concerning guns, crime, and violence. In both questionnaires, the majority of the items covered firearms knowledge, acquisition, and use. The remaining items in the inmate survey primarily covered criminal behavior and, secondarily, victimization histories. In the student survey, these priorities were reversed.

Here are a few use cases for this project:

1. Security Surveillance: This model can be used in real-time security surveillance systems in various high-risk areas such as banks, airports, schools, or government buildings to detect any individuals possessing firearms. It can alert security personnel immediately once a firearm is detected.

2. Crime Prevention: Law enforcement agencies and police departments can use this model to identify and track individuals carrying guns in public spaces, helping to prevent potential violent incidents and crimes.

3. Social Media Monitoring: The model can be applied to scan and monitor social media content and online videos for illegal display of firearms, significantly aiding in online safety and cyber law enforcement.

4. Video Content Filtering: Online platforms such as YouTube or TikTok can leverage this model to filter out or flag content that contains guns, ensuring that such content doesn't reach the wrong audience like minors or individuals susceptible to violence.

5. AI-based Video Games: Developers may use this model in AI-enhanced video games for accurately identifying guns and players, contributing to more realistic game scenarios or possibly supporting anti-cheating mechanisms.

The Toronto’s Police Service Annual Statistical Report (ASR) is a comprehensive overview of police related statistics including reported crimes, victims of crime, search of persons, firearms, traffic collisions, personnel, budget, communications, public complaints, regulated interactions and other administrative information. This dataset includes all shooting occurrences from 2014 to 2019 by occurred date aggregated by Division. This data includes all shooting-related events reported to the Toronto Police Service, including, but not limited to, those that may have been deemed unfounded after investigation. Data is accurate as of the date and time of reporting. In accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Toronto Police Service has taken the necessary measures to protect the privacy of individuals involved in the reported occurrences. No personal information related to any of the parties involved in the occurrence will be released as open data. The data has been aggregated by year, category, subtype and geographic division. As there is no criminal offence code for shootings, a shooting occurrence number may also be present in other data sets including, but not limited to, assault and robbery. Note: The further breakdown of this information at the event level will be made available in the future releases of the Shootings open data. Shootings in this data set include both firearm discharges and shooting events, which are defined as follows: Shooting Event/Occurrence: Any incident in which a projectile is discharged from a firearm (as defined under the Criminal Code of Canada) and injures a person. This excludes events such as suicide and police involved firearm discharges. Firearm Discharge: Any incident where evidence exists that a projectile was discharged from a firearm (as defined under the Criminal Code of Canada) including accidental discharge (non-police), celebratory fire, drive-by etc. Persons Injured (previously classified as “victims”): A person who was struck by a bullet(s) as a result of the discharge of a firearm (as defined under the Criminal Code of Canada). This excludes events such as suicide, police-involved event or where the weapon used was not a real firearm (such as pellet gun, air pistol, “sim-munition” etc.) Injury Levels Death: Where the injured person (as defined above) has died as a result of injuries sustained from a bullet(s). Injuries: Where the injured person (as defined above) has non-fatal physical injuries as a result of a bullet(s). This data is related to table (ASR-SH-TBL-001) in The Annual Statistical Report. Additional information can be found here.

In 1985, the Teens, Crime, and the Community and Community Works (TCC/CW) program, a collaborative effort by the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and Street Law, Inc., was developed in an effort to reduce adolescent victimization. The purpose of the study was to assess whether the TCC/CW program was successfully implemented and whether it achieved its desired outcome, namely to reduce adolescent victimization. Following an extensive effort to identify potential sites for inclusion in the TCC/CW program outcome evaluation, a quasi-experimental five-wave panel study of public school students was initiated in the fall of 2004. Classrooms in the sample were matched by teacher or subject and one-half of the classrooms received the TCC/CW curriculum while the other half (the control group) was not exposed to the curriculum. A total of 1,686 students representing 98 classrooms in 15 middle schools located in 9 cities in 4 different states were surveyed 3 times: pre-tests in Fall 2004 (Part 1), post-tests in Spring 2005 (Part 2), and through a one-year follow-up survey in Fall 2005 (Part 3). A total of 227 variables are included in Part 1, 297 in Part 2, and 290 in Part 3. Most of these variables are the same across waves, including demographic variables, variables measuring whether the students are involved in extracurricular and other school related activities, community service, religious activities, family activities, employment, or illegal activities and crime, variables measuring the students' views regarding bullying, schoolwork, school and neighborhood violence, property crimes, drug use, alcohol use, gun violence, vandalism, skipping school, inter-racial tensions, neighborhood poverty, and law-enforcement officers, variables measuring how students react to anger, risk, conflict with fellow students, and how they handle long-term versus short-term decision-making, variables measuring group dynamics, variables measuring students' self-esteem, and variables measuring students' awareness of resources in their respective school and neighborhood to address problems and provide support.

The lever-pulling model was first developed as part of a broad-based, problem-solving effort implemented in Boston in the mid-1990s. The lever-pulling strategy was a foundational element of many collaborative partnerships across the country and it was a central element of the strategic plans of many Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) jurisdictions. This effort attempted to deter the future violent behavior of chronic offenders by first communicating directly to them about the impact that violence had on the community and the implementation of new efforts to respond to it, and then giving credibility to this communication effort by using all available legal sanctions (i.e., levers) against these offenders when violence occurred. The purpose of the study was to perform an experimental evaluation of a lever-pulling strategy implemented in Indianapolis, Indiana. Probationers were randomly assigned to the law enforcement focused lever-pulling group, the community leader lever-pulling group, or a regular probation control group during six months between June 2003 and March 2004. There were a total of 540 probationers in the study--180 probationers in each group. Probationers in the law enforcement focused lever-pulling group had face-to-face meetings with federal and local law enforcement officials and primarily received a deterrence-based message, but community officials also discussed various types of job and treatment opportunities. In contrast, probationers in the community leader lever-pulling group attended meetings with community leaders and service providers who exclusively focused on the impact of violence on the community and available services. Three types of data were collected to assess perceptions about the meeting: offending behavior, program participation behavior, and the levers pulled. First, data were collected using a self-report survey instrument (Part 1). Second, the complete criminal history for probationers (Part 2) was collected one-year after their meeting date. Third, all available probation data (Part 3) were collected 365 days after the meeting date. Part 1, Self-Report Survey Data, includes a total of 316 variables related to the following three types of data: Section I: meeting evaluation and perception of risk, Section II: Self-reported offense and gun use behavior, and Section III: Demographics. Part 2, Criminal History Data, includes a total of 94 variables collected about the probationer's complete offending history as well as their criminal activities after the treatment for one year. Part 3, Probation Data, includes a total of 249 variables related to probation history and other outcome data.

This dataset displays the participation of each state in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in the USA as of 12.31.2005. The NICS is a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the USA. Federal Firearms License holders are required by law to use the NICS to determine if it is legal to sell a firearm to a prospective buyer. The NICS determines if the buyer is prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The NICS is applicable to sales from federally licensed dealers. Sales of firearms by private sellers are allowed to proceed without a background check unless required by state law. These regulations remain in place at gun shows, where no special leniency is granted to licensed sellers, and no additional requirements are placed upon private sellers. Each State determines the extent of its participation in the NICS process. Three basic forms of State involvement currently exist: 1. a POC requests a NICS check on all firearm transfers originating in the State; 2. a POC requests a NICS check on all handgun transfers; licensees in the State are required to contact the FBI for approval of long gun transfers; or 3. the State does not maintain a point of contact; licensees are required to contact the FBI for NICS checks on all firearm transfers originating in the State. The FBI and the POC agencies always check three major Federal databases, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Index. A POC may check additional State records. A check may include contacting an agency that maintains a record that the FBI or POC cannot access directly. After a search, the checking agency responds with a notice to the licensee that the transfer may proceed, may not proceed, or is delayed pending further review of the applicant's record. Other notes: State forbids pawning a handgun = AL, IN, MA, MI, NJ (all firearms), NH, PA

Number, percentage and rate (per 100,000 population) of homicide victims, by racialized identity group (total, by racialized identity group; racialized identity group; South Asian; Chinese; Black; Filipino; Arab; Latin American; Southeast Asian; West Asian; Korean; Japanese; other racialized identity group; multiple racialized identity; racialized identity, but racialized identity group is unknown; rest of the population; unknown racialized identity group), gender (all genders; male; female; gender unknown) and region (Canada; Atlantic region; Quebec; Ontario; Prairies region; British Columbia; territories), 2019 to 2024.

The data used in the MPS Stop and Search Dashboard is available here Stop and Search Dashboard | Metropolitan Police, along with the related data definitions. Please note that, this dataset is updated monthly at the beginning of the month. Data runs until the end of the month prior. Definitions / Counting Rules Stop and Search (S&S) - When an officer stops a member of the public and searches them. The police can only detain members of the public in order to carry out a search when certain conditions have been met. Search powers fall under different areas of legislation which include searching for Stolen property Prohibited articles namely offensive weapons or anything used for burglary, theft, deception or criminal damage Drugs Guns Historically searches of unattended vehicles and vessels have made up a very low proportion of search activity. PACE and Other Stops and Searches - Stops and Searches under PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act), S23 Drugs Act, S47 Firearms Act plus a very small number not included in the other categories (e.g. s27(1) Aviation Security Act 1982 or S7 Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) Act 1985) Section 60 Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 (s.60) - Where an authorising officer reasonably believes that serious violence may take place or that persons are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons without good reason they may authorise powers for officers in uniform to stop and search any person or vehicles within a defined area and time period. Search Groupings - Searches within this report are sometimes grouped as either Weapons, ASB or Key Crime searches. The Weapons group is composed of stops recorded under codes C - Firearms (s47 Firearms Act), D - Offensive Weapons (s1 PACE), K - Anticipated Violence (s60 CJPO). The ASB group is composed of codes B - Drugs (s23 Misuse of Drugs Act), L- Criminal Damage (s1 Pace), Y- Psychoactive Substances, Z - Fireworks (s1 Pace). The Key Crime Group is composed of codes A - Stolen Property (s1 PACE), F- Going Equipped (s1 PACE). Criminality Detected (formerly Positive Outcomes) - Criminality Detected refers to a Stop where the outcome is any outcome other than 'No Further Action (NFA)'. The 'Criminality Detected' rate is determined by dividing the number of Criminality Detected searches by the total number of searches. Ethnic Appearance - The ethnicity of the person stopped as perceived by the officer. For further information on the mapping of 4+1 groupings to 18+1 census data please see HO report Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2010 at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pubsstatistical.html Self Defined Ethnicity (SDE) - The ethnic group as defined by the person stopped (National Census categories). This report uses 2011 Census data. This is held in 18+1 format and the recorded ethnic appearance of the Stop/Search (4+1) must be mapped to the appropriate 18+1 Census categories. The categories are mapped as follows: White = White British, White Irish, White Gypsy or Irish Traveller, and any other White Background. Black = Black or Black British, Caribbean, African, Mixed White and Black Caribbean, Mixed White and Black African, and any other Black Background Asian = Asian or Asian British Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Mixed White and Asian and any other Asian background. Other = Arab, and any other Ethnic Group Caveats The Borough shown is location of search and not necessarily the borough of the officer conducting the search. The ethnicity of persons stopped and searched within the central London area are unlikely to reflect the resident population due to large numbers of both British and foreign tourists in this region. The MPS fully recognises the distress to the individual which any type of search where intimate parts are exposed can cause, and does not seek to downplay this. However, dip sampling of records has shown that historically some of the records included in this dashboard were wrongly recorded as MTIPs, when they were in fact strip searches conducted in custody after arrest. There will therefore be some double counting, as these will also have been recorded on our custody system and will be therefore be counted in both this dashboard and the separate strip search dashboard. NB Data uploaded to this area after February 2024 is sourced from the CONNECT system. Some measures\details previously provided may not be available in total or in part. Please take care when comparing data-sets posted after February 2024 with those posted prior.