In 2023, 8,842 murderers in the United States were white, while 6,405 were Black. A further 461 murderers were of another race, including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. However, not all law enforcement agencies submitted homicide data to the FBI in 2023, meaning there may be more murder offenders of each race than depicted. While the majority of circumstances behind murders in the U.S. are unknown, narcotics, robberies, and gang killings are most commonly identified.

In 2023, the FBI reported that there were 9,284 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,289 white murder victims. In comparison, there were 554 murder victims of unknown race and 586 victims of another race. Victims of inequality? In recent years, the role of racial inequality in violent crimes such as robberies, assaults, and homicides has gained public attention. In particular, the issue of police brutality has led to increasing attention following the murder of George Floyd, an African American who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Studies show that the rate of fatal police shootings for Black Americans was more than double the rate reported of other races. Crime reporting National crime data in the United States is based off the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new crime reporting system, which requires law enforcement agencies to self-report their data in detail. Due to the recent implementation of this system, less crime data has been reported, with some states such as Delaware and Pennsylvania declining to report any data to the FBI at all in the last few years, suggesting that the Bureau's data may not fully reflect accurate information on crime in the United States.

In 2023, there were 14,327 murder offenders in the United States who were male, in comparison to 1,898 who were female. However, there were also 5,279 murder offenders where their gender was unknown. Homicides in the U.S. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the United States is defined as the willful killing of another human being. Justifiable homicides, or cases where a felon is killed by an officer in the line of duty or a felon is killed during a felony by a private citizen, are not included in murder counts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The total number of murders varies from state to state in the U.S., with more populous states having higher numbers of murders. Murder offenders and victims Most murder offenders in the United States are between the ages of 17 and 39, with the number of offenders declining steadily after age 40. Additionally, the highest rate of death by homicide was found among males between the ages of 15 and 24. The highest rate of death by homicide for females was for girls under the age of one.

In 2022, the prevalence of violent crime increased for all races in the United States in comparison to the previous year. In that year, around 1.23 percent of White Americans experienced one or more violent victimizations and approximately 1.39 percent of Black or African American people were the victims of a violent crime.

For a comprehensive guide to this data and other UCR data, please see my book at ucrbook.comVersion 11 release notes:Adds 2020 data. Please note that the FBI has retired UCR data ending in 2020 data so this will be the last SHR data they release. Changes .rda file to .rds.Version 10 release notes:Changes release notes description, does not change data.Version 9 release notes:Adds 2019 data.Version 8 release notes:Adds 2018 data.Changes source of data for years 1985-2018 to be directly from the FBI. 2018 data was received via email from the FBI, 2016-2017 is from the FBI who mailed me a DVD, and 1985-2015 data is from the FBI's Crime Data Explorer site (https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/downloads-and-docs).Adds .csv version of the data.Makes minor changes to value labels for consistency and to fix grammar. Version 7 release notes:Changes project name to avoid confusing this data for the ones done by NACJD.Version 6 release notes:Adds 2017 data.Version 5 release notes:Adds 2016 data.Standardizes the "group" column which categorizes cities and counties by population.Arrange rows in descending order by year and ascending order by ORI. Version 4 release notes: Fix bug where Philadelphia Police Department had incorrect FIPS county code. Version 3 Release Notes:Merges data with LEAIC data to add FIPS codes, census codes, agency type variables, and ORI9 variable.Change column names for relationship variables from offender_n_relation_to_victim_1 to victim_1_relation_to_offender_n to better indicate that all relationship are victim 1's relationship to each offender. Reorder columns.This is a single file containing all data from the Supplementary Homicide Reports from 1976 to 2018. The Supplementary Homicide Report provides detailed information about the victim, offender, and circumstances of the murder. Details include victim and offender age, sex, race, ethnicity (Hispanic/not Hispanic), the weapon used, circumstances of the incident, and the number of both offenders and victims. Years 1976-1984 were downloaded from NACJD, while more recent years are from the FBI. All files came as ASCII+SPSS Setup files and were cleaned using R. The "cleaning" just means that column names were standardized (different years have slightly different spellings for many columns). Standardization of column names is necessary to stack multiple years together. Categorical variables (e.g. state) were also standardized (i.e. fix spelling errors, have terminology be the same across years). The following is the summary of the Supplementary Homicide Report copied from ICPSR's 2015 page for the data.The Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) provide detailed information on criminal homicides reported to the police. These homicides consist of murders; non-negligent killings also called non-negligent manslaughter; and justifiable homicides. UCR Program contributors compile and submit their crime data by one of two means: either directly to the FBI or through their State UCR Programs. State UCR Programs frequently impose mandatory reporting requirements which have been effective in increasing both the number of reporting agencies as well as the number and accuracy of each participating agency's reports. Each agency may be identified by its numeric state code, alpha-numeric agency ("ORI") code, jurisdiction population, and population group. In addition, each homicide incident is identified by month of occurrence and situation type, allowing flexibility in creating aggregations and subsets.

This dataset contains detailed information on homicides in eight United States cities: Philadelphia, Newark, Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Dallas, Oakland, and "Ashton" (a representative large western city). Detailed characteristics for each homicide victim include time and date of homicide, age, gender, race, place of birth, marital status, living arrangement, occupation, socioeconomic status (SES), employment status, method of assault, location where homicide occurred, relationship of victim to offender, circumstances surrounding death, precipitation or resistance of victim, physical evidence collected, victim's drug history, victim's prior criminal record, and number of offenders identified. Data on up to two offenders and three witnesses are also available and include the criminal history, justice system disposition, and age, sex, and race of each offender. Information on the age, sex, and race of each witness also was collected, as were data on witness type (police informant, child, eyewitness, etc.). Finally, information from the medical examiner's records including results of narcotics and blood alcohol tests of the victim are provided.

The Supplementary Homicide Reports data set - often abbreviated to SHR - is the most detailed of the SRS data sets and provides information about the circumstances and participants (victim and offender demographics and relationship status) for homicides. For each homicide incident it tells you the age, sex, race, and ethnicity of each victim and offender as well as the relationship between the first victim and each of the offenders (but not the other victims in cases where there are multiple victims). It also tells you the weapon used by each offender and the circumstance of the killing, such as a “lovers triangle” or a gang-related murder. As with other SRS data, it also tells you the agency it occurred in and the month and year when the crime happened.

Between 2021 and 2024, the homicide rate for people of the Black ethnic group was 39.8 homicides per million population in England and Wales, far higher than that of the white ethnic group, which was 8.5 victims per million population for the same time period.

This study sought to assess changes in the volume and types of homicide committed in Philadelphia, Phoenix, and St. Louis from 1980 to 1994 and to document the nature of those changes. Three of the eight cities originally studied by Margaret Zahn and Marc Riedel (NATURE AND PATTERNS OF HOMICIDE IN EIGHT AMERICAN CITIES, 1978 [ICPSR 8936]) were revisited for this data collection. In each city, police records were coded for each case of homicide occurring in the city each year from 1980 to 1994. Homicide data for St. Louis were provided by the St. Louis Homicide Project with Scott Decker and Richard Rosenfeld as the principal investigators. Variables describing the event cover study site, year of the case, date and time of assault, location of fatal injury, method used to kill the victim, and circumstances surrounding the death. Variables pertaining to offenders include total number of homicide and assault victims, number of offenders arrested, number of offenders identified, and disposition of event for offenders. Variables on victims focus on whether the victim was killed at work, if the victim was using drugs or alcohol, the victim's blood alcohol level, and the relationship of the victim to the offender. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status of victims and offenders.

In the United States, Black people have higher rates of gun homicide than White people across all age groups. As of 2022, gun homicide rates were highest among Black people aged between 15 and 24 years, at 63.78 gun homicides per 100,000 of the population. In comparison, there were only 2.58 gun homicides per 100,000 of the White population within this age range. However, the risk for gun homicide was greatest among all adolescents and adults between the ages of 15 to 44 in that year. The impact of guns on young Americans In the last few years, firearms have become the leading cause of death for American children and teenagers aged one to 19 years old, accounting for more deaths than car crashes and diseases. School shootings also remain on the rise recently, with the U.S. recording 57 times as many school shootings than other high-income nations from 2009 to 2018. Black students in particular experience a disproportionately high number of school shootings relative to their population, and K-12 teachers at schools made up mostly of students of color are more likely to report feeling afraid that they or their students would be a victim of attack or harm. The right to bear arms Despite increasingly high rates of gun-related violence, gun ownership remains a significant part of American culture, largely due to the fact that the right to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution. Although firearms are the most common murder weapon used in the U.S., accounting for approximately 15,000 homicides in 2022, almost half of American households have at least one firearm in their possession. Consequently, it is evident that firearms remain easily accessible nationwide, even though gun laws may vary from state to state. However, the topic of gun control still causes political controversy, as the majority of Republicans agree that it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while Democrats are more inclined to believe that it is more important to limit gun ownership.

Version 10 release notes:Changes release notes description, does not change data.Version 9 release notes:Adds 2019 data.Version 8 release notes:Adds 2018 data.Changes source of data for years 1985-2018 to be directly from the FBI. 2018 data was received via email from the FBI, 2016-2017 is from the FBI who mailed me a DVD, and 1985-2015 data is from the FBI's Crime Data Explorer site (https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/downloads-and-docs).Adds .csv version of the data.Makes minor changes to value labels for consistency and to fix grammar. Version 7 release notes:Changes project name to avoid confusing this data for the ones done by NACJD.Version 6 release notes:Adds 2017 data.Version 5 release notes:Adds 2016 data.Standardizes the "group" column which categorizes cities and counties by population.Arrange rows in descending order by year and ascending order by ORI. Version 4 release notes: Fix bug where Philadelphia Police Department had incorrect FIPS county code. Version 3 Release Notes:Merges data with LEAIC data to add FIPS codes, census codes, agency type variables, and ORI9 variable.Change column names for relationship variables from offender_n_relation_to_victim_1 to victim_1_relation_to_offender_n to better indicate that all relationship are victim 1's relationship to each offender. Reorder columns.This is a single file containing all data from the Supplementary Homicide Reports from 1976 to 2018. The Supplementary Homicide Report provides detailed information about the victim, offender, and circumstances of the murder. Details include victim and offender age, sex, race, ethnicity (Hispanic/not Hispanic), the weapon used, circumstances of the incident, and the number of both offenders and victims. Years 1976-1984 were downloaded from NACJD, while more recent years are from the FBI. All files came as ASCII+SPSS Setup files and were cleaned using R. The "cleaning" just means that column names were standardized (different years have slightly different spellings for many columns). Standardization of column names is necessary to stack multiple years together. Categorical variables (e.g. state) were also standardized (i.e. fix spelling errors, have terminology be the same across years). The following is the summary of the Supplementary Homicide Report copied from ICPSR's 2015 page for the data.The Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) provide detailed information on criminal homicides reported to the police. These homicides consist of murders; non-negligent killings also called non-negligent manslaughter; and justifiable homicides. UCR Program contributors compile and submit their crime data by one of two means: either directly to the FBI or through their State UCR Programs. State UCR Programs frequently impose mandatory reporting requirements which have been effective in increasing both the number of reporting agencies as well as the number and accuracy of each participating agency's reports. Each agency may be identified by its numeric state code, alpha-numeric agency ("ORI") code, jurisdiction population, and population group. In addition, each homicide incident is identified by month of occurrence and situation type, allowing flexibility in creating aggregations and subsets.

This study was undertaken to standardize the format of national homicide data and to analyze trends over the period 1968-1978. The unit of analysis is the homicide victim, and variables include information on the reporting agency, the circumstances of the incident, and the characteristics of the victim and the offender. Within these categories are variables pertaining to population and city size, victim's and offender's age, race, and sex, and the number of victims and offenders involved in the incident. Information about the incident includes the type of weapon used and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.

These datasets contain information on every homicide in the murder analysis files of the Chicago Police Department for the years 1965-1995. For the victim-level file, Part 1, data are provided on the relationship of victim to offender, whether the victim or offender had previously committed a violent or nonviolent offense, time of occurrence and place of homicide, type of weapon used, cause and motivation for the incident, whether the incident involved drugs, alcohol, gangs, child abuse, or a domestic relationship, if or how the offender was identified, and information on the death of the offender(s). Demographic variables such as the age, sex, and race of each victim and offender are also provided. The victim-level file contains one record for each victim. Information for up to five offenders is included on each victim record. The same offender information is duplicated depending on the number of victims. For example, if a sole offender is responsible for five victims, the file contains five victim records with the offender's information repeated on each record. Part 2, Offender-Level Data, is provided to allow the creation of offender rates and risk analysis that could not be accurately prepared using the victim-level file due to the repeating of the offender information on each victim record. Offender variables were reorganized during the creation of the offender file so that each known offender is associated with a single record. A majority of the variables in the offender-level file are replicas of variables in the victim-level file. The offender records contain demographic information about the offender, demographic and relationship information about the offender's first victim (or sole victim if there was only one), and information about the homicide incident. Information pertaining to the homicide incident such as location, weapon, or drug use are the same as in the victim-level file. In cases where the offender data were completely missing in the victim-level data, no offender records were generated in the offender-level file. The offender-level data do not contain information about the victims in these cases. Geographic variables in both files include the census tract, community area, police district, and police area.

The goal of the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study (CWHRS) was to develop a reliable and validated profile of risk factors directly related to lethal or life-threatening outcomes in intimate partner violence, for use in agencies and organizations working to help women in abusive relationships. Data were collected to draw comparisons between abused women in situations resulting in fatal outcomes and those without fatal outcomes, as well as a baseline comparison of abused women and non-abused women, taking into account the interaction of events, circumstances, and interventions occurring over the course of a year or two. The CWHRS used a quasi-experimental design to gather survey data on 705 women at the point of service for any kind of treatment (related to abuse or not) sought at one of four medical sites serving populations in areas with high rates of intimate partner homicide (Chicago Women's Health Center, Cook County Hospital, Erie Family Health Center, and Roseland Public Health Center). Over 2,600 women were randomly screened in these settings, following strict protocols for safety and privacy. One goal of the design was that the sample would not systematically exclude high-risk but understudied populations, such as expectant mothers, women without regular sources of health care, and abused women in situations where the abuse is unknown to helping agencies. To accomplish this, the study used sensitive contact and interview procedures, developed sensitive instruments, and worked closely with each sample site. The CWHRS attempted to interview all women who answered "yes -- within the past year" to any of the three screening questions, and about 30 percent of women who did not answer yes, provided that the women were over age 17 and had been in an intimate relationship in the past year. In total, 705 women were interviewed, 497 of whom reported that they had experienced physical violence or a violent threat at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year (the abused, or AW, group). The remaining 208 women formed the comparison group (the non-abused, or NAW, group). Data from the initial interview sections comprise Parts 1-8. For some women, the AW versus NAW interview status was not the same as their screening status. When a woman told the interviewer that she had experienced violence or a violent threat in the past year, she and the interviewer completed a daily calendar history, including details of important events and each violent incident that had occurred the previous year. The study attempted to conduct one or two follow-up interviews over the following year with the 497 women categorized as AW. The follow-up rate was 66 percent. Data from this part of the clinic/hospital sample are found in Parts 9-12. In addition to the clinic/hospital sample, the CWHRS collected data on each of the 87 intimate partner homicides occurring in Chicago over a two-year period that involved at least one woman age 18 or older. Using the same interview schedule as for the clinic/hospital sample, CWHRS interviewers conducted personal interviews with one to three "proxy respondents" per case, people who were knowledgeable and credible sources of information about the couple and their relationship, and information was compiled from official or public records, such as court records, witness statements, and newspaper accounts (Parts 13-15). In homicides in which a woman was the homicide offender, attempts were made to contact and interview her. This "lethal" sample, all such homicides that took place in 1995 or 1996, was developed from two sources, HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1995 (ICPSR 6399) and the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office. Part 1 includes demographic variables describing each respondent, such as age, race and ethnicity, level of education, employment status, screening status (AW or NAW), birthplace, and marital status. Variables in Part 2 include details about the woman's household, such as whether she was homeless, the number of people living in the household and details about each person, the number of her children or other children in the household, details of any of her children not living in her household, and any changes in the household structure over the past year. Variables in Part 3 deal with the woman's physical and mental health, including pregnancy, and with her social support network and material resources. Variables in Part 4 provide information on the number and type of firearms in the household, whether the woman had experienced power, control, stalking, or harassment at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, whether she had experienced specific types of violence or violent threats at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, and whether she had experienced symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to the incidents in the past month. Variables in Part 5 specify the partner or partners who were responsible for the incidents in the past year, record the type and length of the woman's relationship with each of these partners, and provide detailed information on the one partner she chose to talk about (called "Name"). Variables in Part 6 probe the woman's help-seeking and interventions in the past year. Variables in Part 7 include questions comprising the Campbell Danger Assessment (Campbell, 1993). Part 8 assembles variables pertaining to the chosen abusive partner (Name). Part 9, an event-level file, includes the type and the date of each event the woman discussed in a 12-month retrospective calendar history. Part 10, an incident-level file, includes variables describing each violent incident or threat of violence. There is a unique identifier linking each woman to her set of events or incidents. Part 11 is a person-level file in which the incidents in Part 10 have been aggregated into totals for each woman. Variables in Part 11 include, for example, the total number of incidents during the year, the number of days before the interview that the most recent incident had occurred, and the severity of the most severe incident in the past year. Part 12 is a person-level file that summarizes incident information from the follow-up interviews, including the number of abuse incidents from the initial interview to the last follow-up, the number of days between the initial interview and the last follow-up, and the maximum severity of any follow-up incident. Parts 1-12 contain a unique identifier variable that allows users to link each respondent across files. Parts 13-15 contain data from official records sources and information supplied by proxies for victims of intimate partner homicides in 1995 and 1996 in Chicago. Part 13 contains information about the homicide incidents from the "lethal sample," along with outcomes of the court cases (if any) from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Variables for Part 13 include the number of victims killed in the incident, the month and year of the incident, the gender, race, and age of both the victim and offender, who initiated the violence, the severity of any other violence immediately preceding the death, if leaving the relationship triggered the final incident, whether either partner was invading the other's home at the time of the incident, whether jealousy or infidelity was an issue in the final incident, whether there was drug or alcohol use noted by witnesses, the predominant motive of the homicide, location of the homicide, relationship of victim to offender, type of weapon used, whether the offender committed suicide after the homicide, whether any criminal charges were filed, and the type of disposition and length of sentence for that charge. Parts 14 and 15 contain data collected using the proxy interview questionnaire (or the interview of the woman offender, if applicable). The questionnaire used for Part 14 was identical to the one used in the clinic sample, except for some extra questions about the homicide incident. The data include only those 76 cases for which at least one interview was conducted. Most variables in Part 14 pertain to the victim or the offender, regardless of gender (unless otherwise labeled). For ease of analysis, Part 15 includes the same 76 cases as Part 14, but the variables are organized from the woman's point of view, regardless of whether she was the victim or offender in the homicide (for the same-sex cases, Part 15 is from the woman victim's point of view). Parts 14 and 15 can be linked by ID number. However, Part 14 includes five sets of variables that were asked only from the woman's perspective in the original questionnaire: household composition, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), social support network, personal income (as opposed to household income), and help-seeking and intervention. To avoid redundancy, these variables appear only in Part 14. Other variables in Part 14 cover information about the person(s) interviewed, the victim's and offender's age, sex, race/ethnicity, birthplace, employment status at time of death, and level of education, a scale of the victim's and offender's severity of physical abuse in the year prior to the death, the length of the relationship between victim and offender, the number of children belonging to each partner, whether either partner tried to leave and/or asked the other to stay away, the reasons why each partner tried to leave, the longest amount of time each partner stayed away, whether either or both partners returned to the relationship before the death, any known physical or emotional problems sustained by victim or offender, including the four-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) scale of depression, drug and alcohol use of the victim and offender, number and type of guns in the household of the victim and offender, Scales of Power and Control (Johnson, 1996) or Stalking and Harassment (Sheridan, 1992) by either intimate partner in the year prior to the death, a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)

In 2023, 12 offenders who killed law enforcement officers in the United States were of an unknown race or their race was not reported to the FBI. 28 white offenders and 17 Black offenders also killed law enforcement officers in that year. From the total of known offenders that year, 54 were male.

From 1966 to January 2024, 81 percent of mass public shooters who carried out the shooting at K-12 schools in the United States identified as White, followed by 13 percent who were Native American and six percent who were Latinx. For mass public shootings occurring at colleges and universities, the shooter was most likely to identify as Asian, at 44 percent, followed by 33 percent who were White. In addition, Black and Middle Eastern shooters each made up 11 percent.

The source defines a mass public shooting as: “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms—not including the offender(s)—within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle). Mass shootings attributable to gangs, as well as most domestic homicides, are therefore excluded from this definition.

In 2022, a total of 622,790 Hispanic/Latino victims experienced one or more violent crime. This was an increase from the previous year, when there were 516,860 Hispanic or Latino victims of violent crime.

In 2020, there were 257 women killed by male single offenders in the state of Texas. Texas was the state with the highest number of women murdered by men in single offender homicides. California had the second most women killed by male single offenders, at 222 cases.

Between 1982 and September 2024, 82 out of the 151 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by White shooters. By comparison, the perpetrator was African American in 26 mass shootings, and Latino in 12. When calculated as percentages, this amounts to 54 percent, 17 percent, and eight percent respectively. Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population Broadly speaking, the racial distribution of mass shootings mirrors the racial distribution of the U.S. population as a whole. While a superficial comparison of the statistics seems to suggest African American shooters are over-represented and Latino shooters underrepresented, the fact that the shooter’s race is unclear in around nine percent of cases, along with the different time frames over which these statistics are calculated, means no such conclusions should be drawn. Conversely, looking at the mass shootings in the United States by gender clearly demonstrates that the majority of mass shootings are carried out by men. Mass shootings and mental health With no clear patterns between the socio-economic or cultural background of mass shooters, increasing attention has been placed on mental health. Analysis of the factors Americans considered to be to blame for mass shootings showed 80 percent of people felt the inability of the mental health system to recognize those who pose a danger to others was a significant factor. This concern is not without merit – in over half of the mass shootings since 1982, the shooter showed prior signs of mental health issues, suggesting improved mental health services may help deal with this horrific problem. Mass shootings and guns In the wake of multiple mass shootings, critics have sought to look beyond the issues of shooter identification and their influences by focusing on their access to guns. The majority of mass shootings in the U.S. involve firearms which were obtained legally, reflecting the easy ability of Americans to purchase and carry deadly weapons in public. Gun control takes on a particular significance when the uniquely American phenomenon of school shootings is considered. The annual number of incidents involving firearms at K-12 schools in the U.S. was over 100 in each year since 2018. Conversely, similar incidents in other developed countries exceptionally rare, with only five school shootings in G7 countries other than the U.S. between 2009 and 2018.