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.

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 2:11 AM EASTERN ON SEPT. 26

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.

This dataset examines the number of unidentified persons reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) National Death Index (NDI), by State, from 1980 to 2004. This report also looks at the number of unidentified human remains reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Unidentified Person File. It describes the characteristics by race and gender and the manner of death. Highlights include the following: Between 1980 and 2004, about 10,300 unidentified human remains were reported to the National Death Index (NDI). Almost three-quarters of unidentified persons were reported by 5 states; Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Of the 2,900 National Crime Information Center records that contained data on the manner of death, 27% were ruled homicides; 12%, accidental deaths; 7%, natural causes; and 5%, suicides. The majority of unidentified persons were white (70%); blacks made up 15% of unidentified persons; and race could not be determined in 13% of the cases. For more information about this data go to: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/uhrus04.htm

This dataset gives the state shares of Internet perpetrators in the U.S. The data was extracted from the 2007 Internet Crime Report prepared by the National White Collar Crime Center, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and FBI. Further details are provide in the report (see URL link below)

This data collection effort was undertaken to analyze the outcomes of capital appeals in the United States between 1973 and 1995 and as a means of assessing the reliability of death penalty verdicts (also referred to herein as "capital judgments" or "death penalty judgments") imposed under modern death-sentencing procedures. Those procedures have been adopted since the decision in Furman v. Georgia in 1972. The United States Supreme Court's ruling in that case invalidated all then-existing death penalty laws, determining that the death penalty was applied in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner and violated Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Data provided in this collection include state characteristics and the outcomes of review of death verdicts by state and year at the state direct appeal, state post-conviction, federal habeas corpus, and all three stages of review (Part 1). Data were compiled from published and unpublished official and archived sources. Also provided in this collection are state and county characteristics and the outcome of review of death verdicts by county, state, and year at the state direct appeal, state post-conviction, federal habeas corpus, and all three stages of review (Part 2). After designing a systematic method for identifying official court decisions in capital appeals and state and federal post-conviction proceedings (no official or unofficial lists of those decisions existed prior to this study), the authors created three databases original to this study using information reported in those decisions. The first of the three original databases assembled as part of this project was the Direct Appeal Database (DADB) (Part 3). This database contains information on the timing and outcome of decisions on state direct appeals of capital verdicts imposed in all years during the 1973-1995 study period in which the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute. The appeals in this database include all those that were identified as having been finally decided during the 1973 to 1995 period (sometimes called "the study period"). The second original database, State Post-Conviction Database (SPCDB) (Part 4), contains a list of capital verdicts that were imposed during the years between 1973 and 2000 when the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute and that were finally reversed on state post-conviction review between 1973 and April 2000. The third original database, Habeas Corpus Database (HCDB) (Part 5), contains information on all decisions of initial (non-successive) capital federal habeas corpus cases between 1973 and 1995 that finally reviewed capital verdicts imposed during the years 1973 to 1995 when the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute. Part 1 variables include state and state population, population density, death sentence year, year the state enacted a valid post-Furman capital statute, total homicides, number of African-Americans in the state population, number of white and African-American homicide victims, number of prison inmates, number of FBI Index Crimes, number of civil, criminal, and felony court cases awaiting decision, number of death verdicts, number of Black defendants sentenced to death, rate of white victims of homicides for which defendants were sentenced to death per 100 white homicide victims, percentage of death row inmates sentenced to death for offenses against at least one white victim, number of death verdicts reviewed, awaiting review, and granted relief at all three states of review, number of welfare recipients and welfare expenditures, direct expenditures on the court system, party-adjusted judicial ideology index, political pressure index, and several other created variables. Part 2 provides this same state-level information and also provides similar variables at the county level. Court expenditure and welfare data are not provided in Part 2, however. Part 3 provides data on each capital direct appeal decision, including state, FIPS state and county code for trial court county, year of death verdict, year of decision, whether the verdict was affirmed or reversed, and year of first fully valid post-Furman statute. The date and citation for rehearing in the state system and on certiorari to the United States Supreme Court are provided in some cases. For reversals in Part 4 information was collected about state of death verdict, FIPS state and county code for trial court county, year of death verdict, date of relief, basis for reversal, stage of trial and aspect of verdict (guilty of aggravated capital murder, death sentence) affected by reversal, outcome on retrial, and citation. Part 5 variables include state, FIPS state and county codes for trial court county, year of death verdict, defendant's history of alcohol or drug abuse, whether the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime, whether the defense attorney was from in-state, whether the defendant was connected to the community where the crime occurred, whether the victim had a high standing in the community, sex of the victim, whether the defendant had a prior record, whether a state evidentiary hearing was held, number of claims for final federal decision, whether a majority of the judges voting to reverse were appointed by Republican presidents, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, whether habeas corpus relief was granted, what claims for habeas corpus relief were presented, and the outcome on each claim that was presented. Part 5 also includes citations to the direct appeal decision, the state post-conviction decision (last state decision on merits), the judicial decision at the pre-penultimate federal stage, the decision at the penultimate federal stage, and the final federal decision.

This dataset shows City level data for all over the United States, and has various attributes for different crimes. Cities are shown as Latitude and longitude points. Attributes include murder, manslaughter, violent crimes, arson, motor vehicle theft, property crimes, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft, and rape. Data was provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Source: FBI URL: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_08.html

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.

Police-reported hate crime, by type of motivation (race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, disability, sex, age), selected regions and Canada (selected police services), 2014 to 2024.

In 2024, there were 301,623 cases filed by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) where the race of the reported missing person was white. In the same year, 17,097 people whose race was unknown were also reported missing in the United States. What is the NCIC? The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a digital database that stores crime data for the United States, so criminal justice agencies can access it. As a part of the FBI, it helps criminal justice professionals find criminals, missing people, stolen property, and terrorists. The NCIC database is broken down into 21 files. Seven files belong to stolen property and items, and 14 belong to persons, including the National Sex Offender Register, Missing Person, and Identify Theft. It works alongside federal, tribal, state, and local agencies. The NCIC’s goal is to maintain a centralized information system between local branches and offices, so information is easily accessible nationwide. Missing people in the United States A person is considered missing when they have disappeared and their location is unknown. A person who is considered missing might have left voluntarily, but that is not always the case. The number of the NCIC unidentified person files in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, and in 2022, there were slightly more NCIC missing person files for males as compared to females. Fortunately, the number of NCIC missing person files has been mostly decreasing since 1998.

Distribution of organization and jurisdiction characteristics among agencies involved in all and race-specific police killings in The Counted during 2015–2016.

HAZUS is an abbreviation for Hazards United States, and was developed by FEMA. The HAZUS dataset was designed to estimate the potential physical, economic and social losses during hazardous events such as flooding or earthquakes. To measure the social impact of these events, HAZUS includes detailed demographic data for the United States. This dataset pulls out the racial data from the demographic files, at the census block level for the Washington portion of the Portland Metropolitan Statistic Area (MSA). Attributes include Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and populations stating other race. Demographics data was recent as of May 2006.

This dataset gives the state shares of Internet crime complainents in the U.S. The data was extracted from the 2007 Internet Crime Report prepared by the National White Collar Crime Center, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and FBI. Further details are provide in the report (see URL link below)

This dataset was retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division website on February 29, 2008. "This table provides the estimated number of offenses and the actual number of offenses reported in the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), cities outside metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan counties, and the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) for each grouping, and the estimated population for each state" however to simplify the dataset, I only included the state total and the rate for each state. Data for Puerto Rico was not included. "The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". Please see the Data Declaration for further information on the data set. Values of -1 represent no value.

This dataset was retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division website on February 29, 2008. "This table provides the type of weapons used in murder offenses. The data are based on the aggregated data from agencies within each state for which supplemental homicide data (i.e., weapon information) were reported to the FBI. The table also includes a breakdown of the types of firearms used in murders (i.e., handguns, rifles, shotguns, or unknown firearms)". "The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". Estimated population was added for each state for 2006 that appeared on Table 5 of the data from 2006. Total murders from 2005 and 2004 were also included. Please see the Data Declaration for further information on the data set. Values of -1 represent no value.

This dataset was retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division website on February 29, 2008. "This table provides arrest data for 29 separate UCR offenses for each state for 2006". The table provides data for total arrests by class of crime. "The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". Estimated population was added for each state for 2006 that appeared on Table 5 of the data from 2006. Please see the Data Declaration for further information on the data set. Values of -1 represent no value.

This dataset includes births, deaths and the ratio of births to deaths by metropolitan area for the years 2000-2006. The actual births and deaths for 2000 and estimates were taken from the U.S. Census Components of Population Change. Ratios were calculated based on that data.

This dataset was retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division website on February 29, 2008. "This table provides arrest data for 29 separate UCR offenses for each state for 2006. The table provides arrests of juveniles (persons under the age of 18)", by class of crime. "The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program". Please see the Data Declaration for further information on the data set. Values of -1 represent no value.

This dataset provides highly detailed (Block Level) views of various demographics for Manhattan, New York city. this dataset includes information on age, race, sex, income, housing, and various other attributes. This data comes from the 2000 Us Census and was joined to the Census Tiger line files to create the output. enjoy!

This dataset displays all the hazardous waste sites in the United States and it's Territories as of 5.08. The data comes from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR). The dataset contains information about the site: Site ID Site Name CERCLIS # Address City State County Latitude Longitude Population Region # Congressional Districts Federal Facility National Priorities List Status Ownership Status Classification For more information go to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR)website at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov