Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide (total firearms; handgun; rifle or shotgun; other firearm-like weapons; firearm, type of firearm is unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2024.

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

This study examined spatial and temporal features of crime guns in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in order to ascertain how gun availability affected criminal behavior among youth, whether the effects differed between young adults and juveniles, and whether that relationship changed over time. Rather than investigating the general prevalence of guns, this study focused only on those firearms used in the commission of crimes. Crime guns were defined specifically as those used in murders, assaults, robberies, weapons offenses, and drug offenses. The emphasis of the project was on the attributes of crime guns and those who possess them, the geographic sources of those guns, the distribution of crime guns over neighborhoods in a city, and the relationship between the prevalence of crime guns and the incidence of homicide. Data for Part 1, Traced Guns Data, came from the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Gun trace data provided a detailed view of crime guns recovered by police during a two-year period, from 1995 to 1997. These data identified the original source of each crime gun (first sale to a non-FFL, i.e., a person not holding a Federal Firearms License) as well as attributes of the gun and the person possessing the gun at the time of the precipitating crime, and the ZIP-code location where the gun was recovered. For Part 2, Crime Laboratory Data, data were gathered from the local county crime laboratory on guns submitted by Pittsburgh police for forensic testing. These data were from 1993 to 1998 and provided a longer time series for examining changes in crime guns over time than the data in Part 1. In Parts 3 and 4, Stolen Guns by ZIP-Code Data and Stolen Guns by Census Tract Data, data on stolen guns came from the local police. These data included the attributes of the guns and residential neighborhoods of owners. Part 3 contains data from 1987 to 1996 organized by ZIP code, whereas Part 4 contains data from 1993 to 1996 organized by census tract. Part 5, Shots Fired Data, contains the final indicator of crime gun prevalence for this study, which was 911 calls of incidents involving shots fired. These data provided vital information on both the geographic location and timing of these incidents. Shots-fired incidents not only captured varying levels of access to crime guns, but also variations in the willingness to actually use crime guns in a criminal manner. Part 6, Homicide Data, contains homicide data for the city of Pittsburgh from 1990 to 1995. These data were used to examine the relationship between varying levels of crime gun prevalence and levels of homicide, especially youth homicide, in the same city. Part 7, Pilot Mapping Application, is a pilot application illustrating the potential uses of mapping tools in police investigations of crime guns traced back to original point of sale. NTC. It consists of two ArcView 3.1 project files and 90 supporting data and mapping files. Variables in Part 1 include date of manufacture and sale of the crime gun, weapon type, gun model, caliber, firing mechanism, dealer location (ZIP code and state), recovery date and location (ZIP code and state), age and state of residence of purchaser and possessor, and possessor role. Part 2 also contains gun type and model, as well as gun make, precipitating offense, police zone submitting the gun, and year the gun was submitted to the crime lab. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 include month and year the gun was stolen, gun type, make, and caliber, and owner residence. Residence locations are limited to owner ZIP code in Part 3, and 1990 Census tract number and neighborhood name in Part 4. Part 5 contains the date, time, census tract and police zone of 911 calls relating to shots fired. Part 6 contains the date and census tract of the homicide incident, drug involvement, gang involvement, weapon, and victim and offender ages. Data in Part 7 include state, county, and ZIP code of traced guns, population figures, and counts of crime guns recovered at various geographic locations (states, counties, and ZIP codes) where the traced guns first originated in sales by an FFL to a non-FFL individual. Data for individual guns are not provided in Part 7.

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.

The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) collects crime reports from more than 500 New York State police and sheriffs’ departments. DCJS compiles these reports as New York’s official crime statistics and submits them to the FBI under the National Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. UCR uses standard offense definitions to count crime in localities across America regardless of variations in crime laws from state to state. In New York State, law enforcement agencies use the UCR system to report their monthly crime totals to DCJS. The UCR reporting system collects information on seven crimes classified as Index offenses which are most commonly used to gauge overall crime volume. These include the violent crimes of murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; and the property crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Firearm counts are derived from taking the number of violent crimes which involve a firearm. Population data are provided every year by the FBI, based on US Census information. Police agencies may experience reporting problems that preclude accurate or complete reporting. The counts represent only crimes reported to the police but not total crimes that occurred. DCJS posts preliminary data in the spring and final data in the fall.

This dataset contains aggregate data on violent index victimizations at the quarter level of each year (i.e., January – March, April – June, July – September, October – December), from 2001 to the present (1991 to present for Homicides), with a focus on those related to gun violence. Index crimes are 10 crime types selected by the FBI (codes 1-4) for special focus due to their seriousness and frequency. This dataset includes only those index crimes that involve bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm and are reported to the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Each row is aggregated up to victimization type, age group, sex, race, and whether the victimization was domestic-related. Aggregating at the quarter level provides large enough blocks of incidents to protect anonymity while allowing the end user to observe inter-year and intra-year variation. Any row where there were fewer than three incidents during a given quarter has been deleted to help prevent re-identification of victims. For example, if there were three domestic criminal sexual assaults during January to March 2020, all victims associated with those incidents have been removed from this dataset. Human trafficking victimizations have been aggregated separately due to the extremely small number of victimizations.

This dataset includes a " GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow CPD time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information.

How does this dataset classify victims?

The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type:

Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table.

To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset.

For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization:

1. In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a first-degree murder (IUCR code = 0110) or a second-degree murder (IUCR code = 0130).
2. When a non-fatal shooting victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code that signifies a criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated battery, we enter “UNK” in the IUCR column, “YES” in the GUNSHOT_I column, and “NON-FATAL” in the PRIMARY column to indicate that the victim was non-fatally shot, but the precise IUCR code is unknown.

Other violent crime victims: For other violent crime types, we refer to the IUCR classification that exists in CPD's victim table, with only one exception:

1. When there is an incident that is associated with no victim with a matching IUCR code, we assume that this is an error. Every crime should have at least 1 victim with a matching IUCR code. In these cases, we change the IUCR code to reflect the incident IUCR code because CPD's incident table is considered to be more reliable than the victim table.

Note: All businesses identified as victims in CPD data have been removed from this dataset.

Note: The definition of “homicide” (shooting or otherwise) does not include justifiable homicide or involuntary manslaughter. This dataset also excludes any cases that CPD considers to be “unfounded” or “noncriminal.”

Note: In some instances, the police department's raw incident-level data and victim-level data that were inputs into this dataset do not align on the type of crime that occurred. In those instances, this dataset attempts to correct mismatches between incident and victim specific crime types. When it is not possible to determine which victims are associated with the most recent crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:11 PM EASTERN ON SEPT. 30

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.

The Office of Gun Violence Prevention (OGVP) shares real-time gun violence data to increase government transparency, improve the public's awareness, and support community-based gun violence prevention and reduction partners. All District crime data is available through Crime Cards. The dashboards below focus on gun violence only. The data in these dashboards is updated daily at 7:40AM with the incidents from the day before. View data covering 7-Day Look-back of Gun Violence and Year-to-date Gun Violence.All statistics presented here are based on preliminary DC criminal code offense definitions. The data do not represent official statistics submitted to the FBI under the Uniform Crime Reporting program (UCR) or National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). All preliminary offenses are coded based on DC criminal code and not the FBI offense classifications. Please understand that any comparisons between MPD preliminary data as published on this website and the official crime statistics published by the FBI under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) are inaccurate and misleading. The MPD does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information. The MPD will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. Read complete data notes at buildingblocks.dc.gov/data.

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

This dataset consists of gun violence within Jefferson county that may fall within LMPDs radar, including non-fatal shootings, homicides, as well as shot-spotter data. The mapping data points where there are victims have been obfuscated to maintain privacy, while still being accurate enough to be placed in its correct boundaries, particularly around, neighborhoods, ZIP Codes, Council districts, and police divisions. The data also excludes any victim information that could be used to identify any individual. this data is used to make the public aware of what is going on in their communities. The data consists of only criminal incidents, excluding any cases that are deemed non-criminal.Field NameField DescriptionCase numberPolice report number. For ShotSpotter detections, it is the ShotSpotter ID.DateTimeDate and time in which the original incident occurred. Time is rounded down.AddressAddress rounded down to the one hundred block of where the initial incident occured. Unless it is an intersection.NeighborhoodNeighborhood in which the original incident occurred.Council DistrictCouncil district in which the original incident occurred.LatitudeLatitude coordinate used to map the incidentLongitudeLongitude coordinate used to map the incidentZIP CodeZIP Code in which the original incident occurred.Crime Typea distinction between incidents, whether it is a non-fatal shooting, homicide, or a ShotSpotter detection.CauseUsed to differentiate on the cause of death for homicide victims.SexGender of the victim of the initial incident.RaceRace/Ethnicity of the victim in a given incident.Age GroupCategorized age groups used to anonymize victim information.Division NamePolice division or department where the initial incident occurred.Crime report data is provided for Louisville Metro Police Divisions only; crime data does not include smaller class cities, unless LMPD becomes involved in smaller agency incident.The data provided in this dataset is preliminary in nature and may have not been investigated by a detective at the time of download. The data is therefore subject to change after a complete investigation. This data represents only calls for police service where a police incident report was taken. Due to the variations in local laws and ordinances involving crimes across the nation, whether another agency utilizes Uniform Crime Report (UCR) or National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) guidelines, and the results learned after an official investigation, comparisons should not be made between the statistics generated with this dataset to any other official police reports. Totals in the database may vary considerably from official totals following the investigation and final categorization of a crime. Therefore, the data should not be used for comparisons with Uniform Crime Report or other summary statistics.Contact:Ivan Benitez, Ph.D.Gun Violence Data FellowOffice for Safe and Healthy Neighborhoodsivan.benitez@louisvilleky.gov

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.

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.

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 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

This dataset contains all shooting-related occurrences reported to the Toronto Police Service since 2004, including, but not limited to, those that may have been deemed unfounded after investigation. Shootings & Firearm Discharges Dashboard Download Documentation Shooting incidents in this dataset include both firearm discharges and shooting events, which are defined below. In 2014, the Toronto Police Service changed records management systems. For occurrences prior to this date, coordinates are limited, therefore for some events with NULL coordinates the neighbourhood will be identified as ‘NSA’ to indicate ‘Not Specified Area.’ The downloadable datasets display the OCC_DATE fields in UTC timezone. 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 firearm discharges, 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. Events categorized as firearm discharges do not include any events where a person’s injuries were sustained from a bullet(s). 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). These events are counted as shootings. Injury Levels – Injuries Where the injured person (as defined above) has non-fatal physical injuries as a result of a bullet(s). These events are counted as shootings. The dataset is intended to provide communities with information regarding public safety and awareness. The data supplied to the Toronto Police Service by the reporting parties is preliminary and may not have been fully verified at the time of publishing the dataset. The location of crime occurrences have been deliberately offset to the nearest road intersection node to protect the privacy of parties involved in the occurrence. All location data must be considered as an approximate location of the occurrence and users are advised not to interpret any of these locations as related to a specific address or individual. NOTE: Due to the offset of occurrence location, the numbers by Division and Neighbourhood may not reflect the exact count of occurrences reported within these geographies. Therefore, the Toronto Police Service does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness of the data and it should not be compared to any other source of crime data. By accessing these datasets, the user agrees to full acknowledgement of the Open Government Licence - Ontario. 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.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily Tuesday through Sunday. The dataset contains more than 65,000 records/rows of data and cannot be viewed in full in Microsoft Excel. Therefore, when downloading the file, select CSV from the Export menu. Open the file in an ASCII text editor, such as Wordpad, to view and search. To access a list of Chicago Police Department - Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (IUCR) codes, go to http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Chicago-Police-Department-Illinois-Uniform-Crime-R/c7ck-438e

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.

This dataset looks at firearm restrictions across the USA by state. If a state has a restriction on a certain weapon than possession is prohibited or allowed only under limited exceptions, or there is a registration requirement. Surveyed Weapons: Assault weapon: A semiautomatic firearm with a large-capacity magazine and special features common to military weapons. Machine gun: (automatic firearm) A firearm that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one bullet, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. Short-barreled rifle: A rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length, and any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches. Short-barreled shotgun: A shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length, and any weapon made from a shotgun, whether altered or modified, if such weapon has an overall length of less then 26 inches. Unsafe handgun: (Saturday night special or junk gun) A handgun with a barrel length under 4 inches that is easily concealable and not effective for sporting or self defense purposes due to its poor quality of construction, inaccuracy, and lack of essential safety features. Definitions are from or adapted from Federal and State Codes (a jurisdictions laws should be consulted for specific definitions). 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.

This dataset accounts for incidents where an APD officer discharged a firearm against a dog. APD is required to annually post this information as a result of the 2017 settlement of the lawsuit of Reyes vs. the City of Austin. AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DATA DISCLAIMER 1. The data provided are for informational use only and may differ from official APD crime data. 2. APD’s crime database is continuously updated, so reports run at different times may produce different results. Care should be taken when comparing against other reports as different data collection methods and different data sources may have been used. 3. The Austin Police Department does not assume any liability for any decision made or action taken or not taken by the recipient in reliance upon any information or data provided.

The Uniform Crime Reports National Time-Series Data, 1967-1980, include detailed criminal offense and clearance information submitted monthly by over 3,000 consistently reporting law enforcement agencies in the United States. These data, provided in annually pooled cross-sections, were processed at the Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts to produce easily accessible and highly reliable time-series data on officially reported crime. Originally provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), these data exclude Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data from infrequently reporting law enforcement agencies. In general, only those agencies that submitted ten or more monthly reports in every year during 1967 through 1980 are included in this collection. The data include detailed breakdowns of offenses and clearances taken from disaggregated UCR Return A tapes. Of particular interest are weapon-specific robbery and assault variables, types of rape, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft, and clearances by arrest (or other exceptional means) of adults and juveniles for each offense sub-type. Both monthly and annual counts of these are available. Finally, as an aid to the user, each agency is identified by its FBI "ORI Code" as well as a sequential case number produced and documented by ICPSR in the codebook's appendix. Cases also may be identified by geographic region, state, SMSA, county, population size and group, and frequency of reporting.