THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:10 PM EASTERN ON MARCH 24

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.

As of December 9, 314 school shooting incidents were recorded in K-12 schools in the United States in 2024. Within the provided time period, the greatest number of K-12 school shootings was recorded in 2023, at 349. The source defines a school shooting as every time a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims (including zero), time, day or the week, or reason, including gang shootings, domestic violence, shootings at sports games and after hours school events, suicides, fights that escalate into shootings, and accidents.

The United States has experienced a tragic increase in school shootings in recent years. Despite substantial media attention being paid to such incidents, and widespread support for stricter gun control measures, significant legislative action remains absent, however. To make sense of this puzzle, this paper focuses on the mobilizing responses of gun rights supporters in the aftermath of such events. Using granular data from 225,000 donations to the NRA's political action committee in a difference-in-differences design, I provide causal estimates showing substantial increases in both donation amounts and donor numbers after school shootings. These results provide insight into the counter-mobilizing responses of the pro-gun political right after shootings. In contrast to the typically transient nature of gun control movements, these counter-mobilizing responses are notably durable. The results of this study have important implications for our understanding of the complexities of, and obstacles to, gun regulation in the United States.

This dataset contains Crime and Safety data from the Cary Police Department.

This data is extracted by the Town of Cary's Police Department's RMS application. The police incidents will provide data on the Part I crimes of arson, motor vehicle thefts, larcenies, burglaries, aggravated assaults, robberies and homicides. Sexual assaults and crimes involving juveniles will not appear to help protect the identities of victims.

This dataset includes criminal offenses in the Town of Cary for the previous 10 calendar years plus the current year. The data is based on the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) which includes all victims of person crimes and all crimes within an incident. The data is dynamic, which allows for additions, deletions and/or modifications at any time, resulting in more accurate information in the database. Due to continuous data entry, the number of records in subsequent extractions are subject to change. Crime data is updated daily however, incidents may be up to three days old before they first appear.

About Crime Data

The Cary Police Department strives to make crime data as accurate as possible, but there is no avoiding the introduction of errors into this process, which relies on data furnished by many people and that cannot always be verified. Data on this site are updated daily, adding new incidents and updating existing data with information gathered through the investigative process.

This dynamic nature of crime data means that content provided here today will probably differ from content provided a week from now. Additional, content provided on this site may differ somewhat from crime statistics published elsewhere by other media outlets, even though they draw from the same database.

Withheld Data

In accordance with legal restrictions against identifying sexual assault and child abuse victims and juvenile perpetrators, victims, and witnesses of certain crimes, this site includes the following precautionary measures: (a) Addresses of sexual assaults are not included. (b) Child abuse cases, and other crimes which by their nature involve juveniles, or which the reports indicate involve juveniles as victims, suspects, or witnesses, are not reported at all.

Certain crimes that are under current investigation may be omitted from the results in avoid comprising the investigative process.

Incidents five days old or newer may not be included until the internal audit process has been completed.

This data is updated daily.

Aineistossa on kartoitettu suomalaisten uutismedioiden toimittajien ammatillisia kokemuksia, arvoja sekä näkemyksiä median tavoitteista ja eettisistä haasteista väkivalta- ja erityisesti koulusurmauutisoinnissa. Kysely on toteutettu osana Turun yliopiston Pohjois-Amerikan tutkimuksen John Morton -keskuksen Tragediauutisoinnin haasteet - median mahdollisuudet käsitellä kouluampumisia (#TRAGE) tutkimushanketta. Tutkimus on Helsingin Sanomain säätiön rahoittama. Aluksi vastaajilta kysyttiin, kuinka usein he tuottavat journalistista sisältöä väkivaltatapauksista ja mikä on heidän mielestään toimittajan tehtävä. Lisäksi tiedusteltiin vastaajien kokemusta journalistisesta vapaudesta ja ammatillisesta itsenäisyydestä. Aineistossa kartoitettiin laajasti vastaajien näkemyksiä eettisestä journalismista: avokysymyksissä kysyttiin esimerkiksi, mitkä ovat vastaajan mielestä suurimpia eettisiä haasteita ja toisaalta mitkä keskeisimpiä journalistisia tavoitteita kouluampumisten ja vastaavien tragedioiden uutisoinnissa. Lisäksi useissa kysymyksissä selvitettiin vastaajan näkemystä siitä, miten uhreja ja epäiltyä tulisi käsitellä mediassa. Vastaajilta tiedusteltiin myös heidän taustaorganisaatioidensa toimintatapoja tragediauutisoinnissa sekä miten he itse käsittelevät traagisten aiheiden käsittelystä aiheutunutta stressiä. Lopuksi kysyttiin, onko vastaajan Twitterin käytöstä sekä kuinka paljon vastaaja näkee sosiaalisen median muuttaneen journalismia. Taustamuuttujina aineistossa ovat ikä, sukupuoli, työkokemus, vastaajan organisaation pääasiallinen kohdeyleisö, onko organisaatio alueellinen vai paikallinen, vastaajan rooli organisaatiossaan ja yleisin formaatti, jossa vastaaja tuottaa uutisia, sekä edellisissä vaaleissa äänestetty puolue. The survey charted the professional experiences, values and opinions of journalists working for Finnish news media regarding the objectives of the media and the ethical challenges when reporting on cases of violence, specifically school shootings. The survey was conducted as part of the #TRAGE research project by the University of Turku John Morton Center for North American Studies. The project examines the media's reporting on school shootings and aims to open a new avenue for discussing the challenges posed by such reporting. The project is funded by the Helsingin Sanomat Foundation. First, the respondents were asked how often they had reported on cases of violence or on school shootings, how independently they could plan and carry out journalistic content, and whether they felt they had enough journalistic freedom. Questions also focused on what the respondents thought were the biggest challenges in reporting school shootings and whether they thought there had been a specific shooting that changed the way tragedy is reported. Additionally, the respondents were asked whether tragedy journalism and its conventions and impacts had been separately discussed in their organisation. The survey also extensively charted the journalists' views on ethical journalism with questions on, for instance, whether they thought it possible that one set of ethical guidelines could be applied by all journalists globally and what they thought were the best tools for preparing a journalist to create ethical content (e.g. ethical guidelines, workshops or supplementary education, advice from a colleague). Next, the respondents were asked what they thought was essential information that should be published when reporting on tragedy (e.g. suspect's name or photo, names or photos of victims). Views on the motivation and reasons behind school shootings were examined, and the respondents were asked whether they were familiar with and adhered to the 'No notoriety' principle. Furthermore, the respondents' opinions on what should be taken into particular consideration when dealing with underage victims and what kind of responsibilities a journalist has when reporting on traumatising events were surveyed. Finally, the respondents were asked how they dealt with the stress caused by reporting on tragedy, whether they had a personal Twitter account and how openly they shared their personal opinions on their Twitter account, and whether they thought social media had changed journalism. Background variables included the respondent's age, gender, work experience, role at work, and which political party they voted for in the last elections. Additionally, background information was collected on the format in which the respondent usually published news content, the primary target audience of the news media/organisation they worked for, and whether the news media/organisation was local or regional.

This study evaluated CeaseFire, a program of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention. The evaluation had both outcome and process components. The outcome evaluation assessed the program's impact on shootings and killings in selected CeaseFire sites. Two types of crime data were compiled by the research team: Time Series Data (Dataset 1) and Shooting Incident Data (Dataset 2). Dataset 1 is comprised of aggregate month/year data on all shooting, gun murder, and persons shot incidents reported to Chicago police for CeaseFire's target beats and matched sets of comparison beats between January 1991 and December 2006, resulting in 1,332 observations. Dataset 2 consists of data on 4,828 shootings that were reported in CeaseFire's targeted police beats and in a matched set of comparison beats for two-year periods before and after the implementation of the program (February 1998 to April 2006). The process evaluation involved assessing the program's operations and effectiveness. Researchers surveyed three groups of CeaseFire program stakeholders: employees, representatives of collaborating organizations, and clients. The three sets of employee survey data examine such topics as their level of involvement with clients and CeaseFire activities, their assessments of their clients' problems, and their satisfaction with training and management practices. A total of 154 employees were surveyed: 23 outreach supervisors (Dataset 3), 78 outreach workers (Dataset 4), and 53 violence interrupters (Dataset 5). The six sets of collaborating organization representatives data examine such topics as their level of familiarity and contact with the CeaseFire program, their opinions of CeaseFire clients, and their assessments of the costs and benefits of being involved with CeaseFire. A total of 230 representatives were surveyed: 20 business representatives (Dataset 6), 45 clergy representatives (Dataset 7), 26 community representatives (Dataset 8), 35 police representatives (Dataset 9), 36 school representatives (Dataset 10), and 68 service organization representatives (Dataset 11). The Client Survey Data (Dataset 12) examine such topics as clients' involvement in the CeaseFire program, their satisfaction with aspects of life, and their opinions regarding the role of guns in neighborhood life. A total of 297 clients were interviewed.

Finding the best public school is a priority for many families. A good education is important to these families, who may even choose where they purchase or rent housing to ensure their children are in the best public school systems.

There are about 51 million public school students in the United States. While far from perfect, public schools play a vital role in their respective communities. Public schools improve their communities and the welfare of children. Public schools welcome all children, no matter their income level, disability, or previous academic performance. Many schools provide school meals, which helps children from food-insecure families get nutritious food every day. The better the public school, the more likely students will achieve higher educational attainment.

While there is no comprehensive way to measure what public schools are the best in the nation, a few surveys look at data, including high school graduation rates and college readiness, to determine which states have the best schools.

States with the Best Public Schools WalletHub ranked each state's public schools for "Quality" and "Safety" using 33 relevant metrics. Metrics included high school graduation rate among low-income students, math and reading scores, median SAT and ACT scores, pupil-teach ratio, the share of armed students, the number of school shootings between 2000 and June 2020, bullying incidence rate, and more. Based on these metrics, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey have the best public schools in the United States.