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

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

Victims of gang-related homicides (total number of homicide victims; number of homicide victims - unknown gang-relation; number of homicide victims - known gang relation; number of gang-related homicide victims; percentage of gang-related homicide victims; rate (per 100,000 population) of gang-related homicide victims), Canada and regions, 1999 to 2024.

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.

The Shootings dashboard contains information on shooting incidents where a victim was struck by a bullet, either fatally or non-fatally; that occurred in the City of Boston and fall under Boston Police Department jurisdiction. The dashboard does not contain records for self-inflicted gunshot wounds or shootings determined to be justifiable. Information on the incident, and the demographics of victims are included. This information is updated based on analysis conducted by the Boston Regional Intelligence Center under the Boston Police Department Bureau of Intelligence and Analysis. The data is for 2015 forward, with a 7 day rolling delay to allow for analysis and data entry to occur.

Number, rate and percentage changes in rates of homicide victims, Canada, provinces and territories, 1961 to 2024.

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

Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) Database and Statistical Analysis. Data is updated after there is an officer involved shooting.PIU#Incident # - the number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence rooms Date of Occurrence Month - month the incident occurred (Note the year is labeled on the tab of the spreadsheet)Date of Occurrence Day - day of the month the incident occurred (Note the year is labeled on the tab of the spreadsheet)Time of Occurrence - time the incident occurredAddress of incident - the _location the incident occurredDivision - the LMPD division in which the incident actually occurredBeat - the LMPD beat in which the incident actually occurredInvestigation Type - the type of investigation (shooting or death)Case Status - status of the case (open or closed)Suspect Name - the name of the suspect involved in the incidentSuspect Race - the race of the suspect involved in the incident (W-White, B-Black)Suspect Sex - the gender of the suspect involved in the incidentSuspect Age - the age of the suspect involved in the incidentSuspect Ethnicity - the ethnicity of the suspect involved in the incident (H-Hispanic, N-Not Hispanic)Suspect Weapon - the type of weapon the suspect used in the incidentOfficer Name - the name of the officer involved in the incidentOfficer Race - the race of the officer involved in the incident (W-White, B-Black, A-Asian)Officer Sex - the gender of the officer involved in the incidentOfficer Age - the age of the officer involved in the incidentOfficer Ethnicity - the ethnicity of the suspect involved in the incident (H-Hispanic, N-Not Hispanic)Officer Years of Service - the number of years the officer has been serving at the time of the incidentLethal Y/N - whether or not the incident involved a death (Y-Yes, N-No, continued-pending)Narrative - a description of what was determined from the investigationContact:Carol Boylecarol.boyle@louisvilleky.gov

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. This dataset comes out of a broader project on ethnicity, crime and justice in England 1700-1825 which is described below. The aim of this part of the project was to use this data to explore the extent to which different ethnic groups were treated differently by the courts as well as to measure differences between groups in their involvement as accused. Although modern criminological research has established that race and ethnicity have a deep impact on the workings of the criminal justice system, no substantial historical work has yet been on this subject. By analysing the impact of ethnicity on patterns of recorded crime and on decision-making at every point in the criminal justice system during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, this project aims to provide this vital comparative perspective. It focuses primarily on London, with its growing black and Irish population, and asks the following questions - Were these ethnic groups over-represented among those accused of property crime, violent crime etc? And were they more likely to be found guilty and to receive harsher punishments? It also looks at the experiences of ethnic groups as prosecutors and victims. Was there, for example, more sympathy for black victims than for Irish ones, or was there a fairly systematic bias against almost all migrant groups? Were they subjected to particular types of ethnically motivated crimes? More generally, by looking both at patterns of decision-making, and at the language used when ethnic minorities appeared in court as prosecutors, victims or accused, the aim is to gain a deeper understanding of attitudes towards and discourses about race and ethnicity in this period.

This is a set of csv files including a number of variables including fatal police shootings and other crime and socioeconomic covariates at different levels of geographical aggregation from 2013-2016. Five of the files use only the Washington Post data covering years 2015 and 2016, whereas the other five files utilize fatal police shootings of civilians for years 2013-2016, combining the Lott & Moody (2016) data for years 2013-2015 and Washington Post data for 2016. Other variables are included from the American Community Survey (ACS), the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS), Stanford Education Data Archive (SEDA), the US Census, and the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The base file is the county-level data. The two files labelled "tenk" consist of regions with at least 10,000 residents. Counties with fewer than 10,000 residents are combined with adjacent counties, ranked by population in ascending order, so that counties with fewer than 10,000 residents are iteratively combined with adjacent neighbors with the fewest residents until they reach the threshold of 10,000 residents. The same algorithm is used to produce regions with 100,000 and 1 million residents. The final two files are state-level aggregations.

Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) Database and Statistical Analysis. Data is updated after there is an officer involved shooting.PIU#Incident # - the number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence rooms Date of Occurrence Month - month the incident occurred (Note the year is labeled on the tab of the spreadsheet)Date of Occurrence Day - day of the month the incident occurred (Note the year is labeled on the tab of the spreadsheet)Time of Occurrence - time the incident occurredAddress of incident - the location the incident occurredDivision - the LMPD division in which the incident actually occurredBeat - the LMPD beat in which the incident actually occurredInvestigation Type - the type of investigation (shooting or death)Case Status - status of the case (open or closed)Suspect Name - the name of the suspect involved in the incidentSuspect Race - the race of the suspect involved in the incident (W-White, B-Black)Suspect Sex - the gender of the suspect involved in the incidentSuspect Age - the age of the suspect involved in the incidentSuspect Ethnicity - the ethnicity of the suspect involved in the incident (H-Hispanic, N-Not Hispanic)Suspect Weapon - the type of weapon the suspect used in the incidentOfficer Name - the name of the officer involved in the incidentOfficer Race - the race of the officer involved in the incident (W-White, B-Black, A-Asian)Officer Sex - the gender of the officer involved in the incidentOfficer Age - the age of the officer involved in the incidentOfficer Ethnicity - the ethnicity of the suspect involved in the incident (H-Hispanic, N-Not Hispanic)Officer Years of Service - the number of years the officer has been serving at the time of the incidentLethal Y/N - whether or not the incident involved a death (Y-Yes, N-No, continued-pending)Narrative - a description of what was determined from the investigationContact:Carol Boylecarol.boyle@louisvilleky.gov

Multivariable negative binomial regression of municipal and county-level police killing rates on 2013 LEMAS policies by agencies in The Counted during 2015–2016, counts by all and race-specific killings.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime that have occurred in the City of Chicago over the past year, minus the most recent seven days of data. 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. Any use of the information for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. 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.

Distribution of 2013 LEMAS policies among agencies involved in all and race-specific police killings in The Counted during 2015–2016.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. January 2019: These data have been temporarily withdrawn while the depositor conducts a review of governance around data sharing and publication.The Metropolitan Police Service User Satisfaction Survey (MPS USS) (formerly known as the Crime Victim Survey) is a corporate survey tool used to measure crime victims' satisfaction with a specific instance of their contact with police. The survey covers the process from initial contact with police, through to police action and follow-up, whilst considering police treatment throughout the process. These elements feed into the main measure of 'Overall Satisfaction', and the results feed into the 'Citizen Focus' domain of Home Office measures. The Overall Satisfaction measure is further explored in order to monitor difference in satisfaction between white and black and minority ethnic (BME) groups, as well as victims of racist incidents. The results are gathered through telephone interviews with c. 18,000 victims a year, by an external market research company on behalf of the MPS. Victims are interviewed 6-12 weeks after they have reported the crime, and interviewing takes place throughout the year. The file currently includes data from 32 quarters between 2005/6 and 2017/18, though the documentation largely covers 2011 onwards. The sample includes victims of burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime, racially-motivated and homophobic crime, between the ages of 16 to 85 years. It excludes victims of domestic violence, serious assaults and sexual offences. Road Traffic Collision victims have not been surveyed since the fiscal year 2012-13. The USS data is reported quarterly within the MPS, and is also provided to the Home Office and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). Another MPS survey series, the Metropolitan Police Public Attitudes Surveys, is held at the UK Data Archive under SN 7048. Latest edition information: For the fifth edition (June 2018) data for Quarters 49-52 were added, extending the study coverage to 2017/18. Main Topics: The questionnaire covers police response to the incident report; subsequent police actions and follow-up; victims' perceptions of their treatment by the police, overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the service received; respondent demographics. Multi-stage stratified random sample See documentation for details. Telephone interview