THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 2:11 AM EASTERN ON JULY 12

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.

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.

In recent years, gun violence in the United States has become an alarmingly common occurrence. From 2016, there has been over ****** homicides by firearm in the U.S. each year and firearms have been found to make up the majority of murder weapons in the country by far, demonstrating increasing rates of gun violence occurring throughout the nation. As of 2025, Mississippi was the state with the highest gun violence rate per 100,000 residents in the United States, at **** percent, followed by Louisiana, at **** percent. In comparison, Massachusetts had a gun violence rate of *** percent, the lowest out of all the states. The importance of gun laws Gun laws in the United States vary from state to state, which has been found to affect the differing rates of gun violence throughout the country. Fewer people die by gun violence in states where gun safety laws have been passed, while gun violence rates remain high in states where gun usage is easily permitted and even encouraged. In addition, some states suffer from high rates of gun violence despite having strong gun safety laws due to gun trafficking, as traffickers can distribute firearms illegally past state lines. The right to bear arms Despite evidence from other countries demonstrating that strict gun control measures reduce rates of gun violence, the United States has remained reluctant to enact gun control laws. This can largely be attributed to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which states that citizens have the right to bear arms. Consequently, gun control has become a highly partisan issue in the U.S., with ** percent of Democrats believing that it was more important to limit gun ownership while ** percent of Republicans felt that it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

Context

The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 2,000 media, law enforcement, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence. GVA in an independent data collection and research group with no affiliation with any advocacy organization.

Content

This dataset includes files that separate gun violence incidents by category, including deaths and injuries of children and teens, and a collection of mass shootings.

Inspiration

• What has been the trend of gun violence in the past few years?
• What states have the highest incidents per capita per year? How has this metric changed over time?
• Are officer involved shootings on the rise? Where are they most concentrated? Do they correlate with the rates of accidental deaths and mass shootings?

Acknowledgements

This dataset is owned by the Gun Violence Archive, and can be accessed in its original form here.

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

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 2023.

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

This 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.

Context

This dataset includes information about gun-death in the US in the years 2012-2014.

Content

The data includes data regarding the victim's age, sex, race, education, intent, time (month and year) and place of death, and whether or not police was at the place of death.

Acknowledgements

I came across this thanks to FiveThirtyEight's Gun Deaths in America project. The data originated from the CDC, and can be found here.

List of every shooting incident that occurred in NYC during the current calendar year.

This is a breakdown of every shooting incident that occurred in NYC during the current calendar year. This data is manually extracted every quarter and reviewed by the Office of Management Analysis and Planning before being posted on the NYPD website. Each record represents a shooting incident in NYC and includes information about the event, the location and time of occurrence. In addition, information related to suspect and victim demographics is also included. This data can be used by the public to explore the nature of police enforcement activity. Please refer to the attached data footnotes for additional information about this dataset.

Number, rate and percentage changes in rates of homicide victims, Canada, provinces and territories, 1961 to 2023.

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,173 civilians having been shot, 248 of whom were Black, as of December 2024. In 2023, there were 1,164 fatal police shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 6.1 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and 2024. Police brutality in the U.S. In recent years, particularly since the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, police brutality has become a hot button issue in the United States. The number of homicides committed by police in the United States is often compared to those in countries such as England, where the number is significantly lower. Black Lives Matter The Black Lives Matter Movement, formed in 2013, has been a vocal part of the movement against police brutality in the U.S. by organizing “die-ins”, marches, and demonstrations in response to the killings of black men and women by police. While Black Lives Matter has become a controversial movement within the U.S., it has brought more attention to the number and frequency of police shootings of civilians.

Number and rate (per 100,000 population) of homicide victims, Canada and Census Metropolitan Areas, 1981 to 2023.

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.

Age-adjusted rate of deaths from firearms by sex, race/ethnicity, age; trends if available. Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, VRBIS, 2007-2016. Data as of 05/26/2017; U.S. Census Bureau; 2010 Census, Tables PCT12, PCT12H, PCT12I, PCT12J, PCT12K, PCT12L, PCT12M; generated by Baath M.; using American FactFinder; Accessed June 20, 2017. METADATA:Notes (String): Lists table title, notes and sourcesYear (String): Year of data; presented as single year or pooled years (2012-2016)Category (String): Lists the category representing the data: Santa Clara County is for total population, sex: Male and Female, race/ethnicity: African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino and White (non-Hispanic White only); age categories as follows: <18, 18 to 44, 45 to 64, 65+; United States and Healthy People 2020 targetRate per 100,000 people (Numeric): Rate of deaths from firearms. Rates for age groups are reported as age-specific rates per 100,000 people. All other rates are age-adjusted rates per 100,000 people.

The study was a comprehensive analysis of felonious killings of officers. The purposes of the study were (1) to analyze the nature and circumstances of incidents of felonious police killings and (2) to analyze trends in the numbers and rates of killings across different types of agencies and to explain these differences. For Part 1, Incident-Level Data, an incident-level database was created to capture all incidents involving the death of a police officer from 1983 through 1992. Data on officers and incidents were collected from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data collection as coded by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. In addition to the UCR data, the Police Foundation also coded information from the LEOKA narratives that are not part of the computerized LEOKA database from the FBI. For Part 2, Agency-Level Data, the researchers created an agency-level database to research systematic differences among rates at which law enforcement officers had been feloniously killed from 1977 through 1992. The investigators focused on the 56 largest law enforcement agencies because of the availability of data for explanatory variables. Variables in Part 1 include year of killing, involvement of other officers, if the officer was killed with his/her own weapon, circumstances of the killing, location of fatal wounds, distance between officer and offender, if the victim was wearing body armor, if different officers were killed in the same incident, if the officer was in uniform, actions of the killer and of the officer at entry and final stage, if the killer was visible at first, if the officer thought the killer was a felon suspect, if the officer was shot at entry, and circumstances at anticipation, entry, and final stages. Demographic variables for Part 1 include victim's sex, age, race, type of assignment, rank, years of experience, agency, population group, and if the officer was working a security job. Part 2 contains variables describing the general municipal environment, such as whether the agency is located in the South, level of poverty according to a poverty index, population density, percent of population that was Hispanic or Black, and population aged 15-34 years old. Variables capturing the crime environment include the violent crime rate, property crime rate, and a gun-related crime index. Lastly, variables on the environment of the police agencies include violent and property crime arrests per 1,000 sworn officers, percentage of officers injured in assaults, and number of sworn officers.

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 2023.

This project investigated the experiences of New York City youth ages 16-24 who were at high risk for gun violence (e.g., carried a gun, been shot or shot at). Youth participants were recruited from three neighborhoods with historically high rates of gun violence when compared to the city as a whole--Brownsville (Brooklyn), Morrisania (Bronx), and East Harlem (Manhattan). This study explores the complex confluence of individual, situational, and environmental factors that influence youth gun acquisition and use. This study is part of a broader effort to build an evidence-based foundation for individual and community interventions, and policies that will more effectively support these young people and prevent youth gun violence. Through interviews with 330 youth, this study seeks to answer these questions: What are the reasons young people carry guns? How do young people talk about having and using guns? What are young people's social networks like, and what roles do guns play in thesenetworks? Interviews covered the following topics: neighborhood perceptions; perceptions of and experiences with the police, gangs, guns, and violence; substance use; criminal history; and demographics: race, gender, age, legal status, relationship status, living situation, _location, number of children, drug use, and education.

This special topic poll, fielded April 22, 2007, is a part of continuing series of monthly polls that solicit public opinion on various political and social issues. This poll focused on respondents' views on gun control and laws. Respondents were asked whether they favored stricter gun laws, whether they would support laws requiring a nationwide ban on semiautomatic handguns, a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons, a nationwide ban on people carrying a concealed weapon, and a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of handguns, except to law enforcement officers. Respondents were also asked whether they thought stricter gun control laws would reduce the amount of violent crime, whether the best way of reducing gun violence was either by passing stricter gun control laws or by stricter enforcement of existing laws, if the respondent or anyone in their home owned a gun, and whether they thought states should or should not be required to report mentally ill people to a federal database in order to prevent them from buying guns. Views were sought concerning the Virginia Tech shooting and university policies. Specifically, respondents were asked whether they thought school officials did or did not do enough to investigate concerns that the student who committed these shootings was mentally unstable, whether news organizations did the right thing or the wrong thing by airing photos and videos of the Virginia Tech gunman, whether they supported a law requiring universities to provide stricter screening and counseling for students who are suspected of being mentally unstable and possibly dangerous to themselves or others, and whether they supported changing confidentiality laws so that when a college student is suspected of being mentally disturbed, the school would be required to notify their parents. Views were also sought on the primary cause of gun violence in America and whether shootings like the one at Virginia Tech could happen in the respondent's community. Respondents were queried on whether they supported legislation giving Washington, D.C., a full voting member in the United States House of Representatives and whether they approved of the proposed law that would give Democratic D.C. a full voting member in the House, while also giving the Republican state of Utah another congressional seat. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, education, political party affiliation, and political philosophy.

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.