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 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.

Texas was the state with the highest number of registered weapons in the United States in 2024, with 1,136,732 firearms. Rhode Island, on the other hand, had the least, with 4,895 registered firearms. Gun laws in the United States Gun ownership in the U.S. is protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, which allows citizens to own firearms and form a militia if necessary. Outside of the 2nd Amendment, gun laws in the U.S. vary from state to state, and gun owners are subject to the laws of the state they are currently in, not necessarily the state they live in. For example, if concealed carry is allowed in a gun owner’s state of residence but not in the state they are traveling in, the owner is subject to the law of the state they are traveling in. Civilian-owned firearms The United States is estimated to have the highest rate of civilian-owned firearms in the world, more than double that of Yemen, which has the second-highest gun ownership rate. Unfortunately, along with high gun ownership rates comes a higher number of homicides by firearm, which was about 13,529 homicides in 2023.

The dataset consists of photos depicting individuals holding guns. It specifically focuses on the segmentation of guns within these images and the detection of people holding guns. Each image in the dataset presents a different scenario, capturing individuals from various backgrounds, genders, and age groups in different poses while holding guns. The dataset is an essential resource for the development and evaluation of computer vision models and algorithms in fields related to firearms recognition, security systems, law enforcement, and safety analysis.

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.

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.

Firearms background checks for the USA for 2012 (Jan-Nov) and since 1999.These statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS. They do not represent the number of firearms sold. NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn't otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials. More information on NICS - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics Some really useful informations such as the rate of checks per 1000 people. All data is provided by state. Downloaded from the Guardian Datablog - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us and then joined to USA States data http://geocommons.com/overlays/21424. Gun data originally from FBI http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics. GIS vector data. This dataset was first accessioned in the EDINA ShareGeo Open repository on 2012-12-17 and migrated to Edinburgh DataShare on 2017-02-21.

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.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:11 PM EASTERN ON JULY 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 United States is ranked first in gun possession globally and is among the countries suffering the most from firearm violence. Several aspects of the US firearm ecosystem have been detailed over the years, mostly focusing on nation- or state-level phenomena. Systematic, high-resolution studies that compare US cities are largely lacking, leaving several questions open. For example, how does firearm violence vary with the population size of a US city? Are guns more prevalent and accessible in larger cities? In search of answers to these questions, we apply urban scaling theory, which has been instrumental in understanding the present and future of urbanization for the past 15 years. We collate a dataset about firearm violence, accessibility and ownership in 929 cities, ranging from 10,000 to 20,000,000 people. We discover superlinear scaling of firearm violence (measured through the incidence of firearm homicides and armed robberies) and sublinear scaling of both firearm ownership (inferred from the percentage of suicides that are committed with firearm) and firearm accessibility (measured as the prevalence of federal firearm-selling licenses). To investigate the mechanism underlying the US firearm ecosystem, we establish a novel information-theoretic methodology that infers associations from the variance of urban features about scaling laws. We unveil influence of violence and firearm accessibility on firearm ownership, which we model through a Cobb–Douglas function. Such an influence suggests that self-protection could be a critical driver of firearm ownership in US cities, whose extent is moderated by access to firearms.

Disclaimer: This list is updated monthly on the website. If up-to-the-minute accuracy is needed, contact us at 312-603-6328. This dataset contains businesses registered for Firearm Retailers.

These data were collected using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), the primary data system of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC began operating NEISS in 1972 to monitor product-related injuries treated in United States hospital emergency departments (EDs). In June 1992, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, established an interagency agreement with CPSC to begin collecting data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries in order to monitor the incidents and the characteristics of persons with nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in United States hospital EDs over time. This dataset represents all nonfatal firearm-related injuries (i.e., injuries associated with powder-charged guns) and all nonfatal BB and pellet gun-related injuries reported through NEISS from 1993 through 2004. The cases consist of initial ED visits for treatment of the injuries. Cases were reported even if the patients subsequently died. Secondary visits and transfers from other hospitals were excluded. Information is available on injury diagnosis, firearm type, use of drugs or alcohol, criminal incident, and locale of the incident. Demographic information includes age, sex, and race of the injured person.

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.

Use of force is a sometimes necessary, yet often controversial, police power. Attempts to understand and explore police use of force have often been hampered by a lack of data, both nationally and internationally, with much research reliant on a very small number of datasets, often in the United States of America. This new data, collected by police forces in England and Wales and collated and published by the Home Office, represents an exciting new resource. According to the Home Office, 'these statistics cover incidents where police officers have used force and includes: the tactics used, the reason for force, the outcome, any injuries (to the officers and or the subject) and subject information (age, gender, ethnicity and disability, as perceived by the reporting officer). From April 2017, all police forces in the UK have been required to record this data. The use of force data collection is intended to hold police forces to account and to provide the public with greater information on the different types of force used and the context in which this occurs' https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-use-of-force-statistics.This project (ES/N016564/1, Less Lethal Force in Law Enforcement) involved, in part, working with various stakeholders to help advise on the creation and maintenance of a new template form for police officers to record their use of force, which in turn has resulted in the collection of new use of force data. A subset of this information, which is generated by the police and published by the Home Office, is routinely made publicly available and this record has been set up to help signpost researchers towards this resource. Further details about the broader ESRC funded project is below: Use of force by law enforcement officials, including police and correctional officers, is a highly important issue. Yet whilst the situations in which these officials use firearms, and the effects of this use, are relatively well documented and understood, this is not the case with 'less lethal' weapons and 'less lethal' force. At least three key topics around less lethal weapons remain under-researched, and this project will tackle all three directly. First we lack a basic understanding of when, why, on whom, and how often, less lethal weapons are used - and whether certain groups of people (those of a particular gender, ethnic minority, mental health status or geographical origin) are more or less likely to have less lethal force used on them. This project will see the PI work closely with the National Police Chief's Council, the Home Office and UK police forces, utilizing datasets previously unavailable to academic researchers to answer such questions. Such issues are also relevant internationally, as shown by recent debates on police less lethal force in countries as varied as Armenia, Hungary and New Zealand. Second, whilst these weapons are associated with saving lives, they have also been associated with serious injuries and fatalities. In the UK alone, several high profile deaths-including that of Ian Tomlinson and Jordan Begley-have occurred following police use of less lethal weapons. There are key questions around how so called less lethal force can impact the right to life, and their association with fatalities worldwide. Building on my PhD work focusing on injuries associated with Taser, this project will see the PI work with the UN Special Rapporteur to research the impact less lethal force has on the right to life in the UK and globally. Third, if it is important to attend to the situations in which force is used, it is also important to look at how such force is monitored and governed. This requires working with police and government to help understand what data on less lethal force should be gathered and analyzed, and working with the independent oversight bodies that monitor places of detention (including police custody) to ensure that they have the necessary research to enable them to document the LLF used by state authorities. The UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture has highlighted the need for research to assist them in addressing and monitoring less lethal weapons and other physical infrastructure found in places of detention. The PI will work with key decision makers on these issues; with the UK government on reporting, and with oversight bodies via the SPT and its network of over 40 national bodies. According to the Home Office's User Guide to Use of Force Statistics, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/945436/user-guide-police-use-of-force-dec20.pdf (pages 4 - 5): 'Officers must complete a ‘use of force report’ each time they use force tactics on an individual. The use of force reports also allow for other information to be recorded... The publication does not include force used in designated public order events, where officers may use force over a period of time against a person(s) not subsequently apprehended. In these situations, it is not feasible for officers to provide the same level of detail as for individual use of force incidents. Police forces may collect additional information at a local level, with further detail or including designated public order events".

This study of violent incidents among middle- and high-school students focused not only on the types and frequency of these incidents, but also on their dynamics -- the locations, the opening moves, the relationship between the disputants, the goals and justifications of the aggressor, the role of third parties, and other factors. For this study, violence was defined as an act carried out with the intention, or perceived intention, of physically injuring another person, and the "opening move" was defined as the action of a respondent, antagonist, or third party that was viewed as beginning the violent incident. Data were obtained from interviews with 70 boys and 40 girls who attended public schools with populations that had high rates of violence. About half of the students came from a middle school in an economically disadvantaged African-American section of a large southern city. The neighborhood the school served, which included a public housing project, had some of the country's highest rates of reported violent crime. The other half of the sample were volunteers from an alternative high school attended by students who had committed serious violations of school rules, largely involving illegal drugs, possession of handguns, or fighting. Many students in this high school, which is located in a large city in the southern part of the Midwest, came from high-crime areas, including public housing communities. The interviews were open-ended, with the students encouraged to speak at length about any violent incidents in school, at home, or in the neighborhood in which they had been involved. The 110 interviews yielded 250 incidents and are presented as text files, Parts 3 and 4. The interview transcriptions were then reduced to a quantitative database with the incident as the unit of analysis (Part 1). Incidents were diagrammed, and events in each sequence were coded and grouped to show the typical patterns and sub-patterns in the interactions. Explanations the students offered for the violent-incident behavior were grouped into two categories: (1) "justifications," in which the young people accepted responsibility for their violent actions but denied that the actions were wrong, and (2) "excuses," in which the young people admitted the act was wrong but denied responsibility. Every case in the incident database had at least one physical indicator of force or violence. The respondent-level file (Part 2) was created from the incident-level file using the AGGREGATE procedure in SPSS. Variables in Part 1 include the sex, grade, and age of the respondent, the sex and estimated age of the antagonist, the relationship between respondent and antagonist, the nature and location of the opening move, the respondent's response to the opening move, persons present during the incident, the respondent's emotions during the incident, the person who ended the fight, punishments imposed due to the incident, whether the respondent was arrested, and the duration of the incident. Additional items cover the number of times during the incident that something was thrown, the respondent was pushed, slapped, or spanked, was kicked, bit, or hit with a fist or with something else, was beaten up, cut, or bruised, was threatened with a knife or gun, or a knife or gun was used on the respondent. Variables in Part 2 include the respondent's age, gender, race, and grade at the time of the interview, the number of incidents per respondent, if the respondent was an armed robber or a victim of an armed robbery, and whether the respondent had something thrown at him/her, was pushed, slapped, or spanked, was kicked, bit, or hit with a fist or with something else, was beaten up, was threatened with a knife or gun, or had a knife or gun used on him/her.

These data were collected using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), the primary data system of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC began operating NEISS in 1972 to monitor product-related injuries treated in United States hospital emergency departments (EDs). In June 1992, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, established an interagency agreement with CPSC to begin collecting data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries in order to monitor the incidents and the characteristics of persons with nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in United States hospital EDs over time. This dataset represents all nonfatal firearm-related injuries (i.e., injuries associated with powder-charged guns) and all nonfatal BB and pellet gun-related injuries reported through NEISS from 1993 through 2018. The cases consist of initial ED visits for treatment of the injuries. Cases were reported even if the patients subsequently died. Secondary visits and transfers from other hospitals were excluded. Information is available on injury diagnosis, firearm type, use of drugs or alcohol, criminal incident, and locale of the incident. Demographic information includes age, sex, and race of the injured person.