In 2023, 13,529 recorded murders in the United States were committed by firearm. This is a decrease from the previous year, when 12,244 homicides were committed with a firearm in the country. However, figures may not accurately reflect the total number of homicides, as not all law enforcement agencies in the U.S. submitted homicide data.

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

The statistic shows the rate of firearm homicide deaths per 100,000 of population in the United States from 1990 to 2020. In 2020, about 5.9 of every 100,000 people were killed by a firearm in the United States.

In 2023, there were ****** fatalities caused by injuries related to firearms in the United States, a slight decrease from the previous year. In 2021, there were ****** firearm deaths, the highest number of gun deaths ever recorded in the country. However, this figure has remained relatively high over the past 25 years, with ****** firearm deaths in 1990 and a slight dip in fatalities between 1999 and 2002. Firearms in the United States The right to own firearms in the United States is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and while this right may be seen as quintessentially American, the relationship between Americans and their firearms has become fraught in the last few years. The proliferation of mass shootings in the U.S. has brought the topic of gun control into the national spotlight, with support for banning assault-style weapons a particularly divisive issue among Americans. Gun control With a little less than **** of all Americans owning at least one firearm and the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world, it is easy to see how the idea of gun control is a political minefield in the U.S. However, public opinion has begun to shift over the past ten years, and a majority of Americans report that laws governing the sale of firearms should be stricter than they are now.

1) Data Introduction • The Gun Violence Dataset in US is a tabularized data set for gun violence analysis that includes the date, location, victim and suspect information, and geographic coordinates of major 2024 shootings across the U.S.

2) Data Utilization (1) Gun Violence Dataset in US has characteristics that: • Each row contains key information about the shooting, including incident-specific ID, date of occurrence, state and city/county, number of deaths and injuries, suspects (death, injury, arrest), latitude, and longitude. • Data is designed to analyze the distribution of gun incidents and the extent of damage by month and region, and spatial analysis through geographic coordinates is also possible. (2) Gun Violence Dataset in US can be used to: • Analysis of shooting trends by region: Use data by location, magnitude of damage, and time to visualize and analyze the regional and temporal distribution and risk areas of gun violence. • Establishing public safety policies and prevention strategies: Based on victim and suspect information and incident characteristics, it can be used to establish effective gun control, prevention policies, resource allocation strategies, and more.

BackgroundGun violence has shortened the average life expectancy of Americans, and better knowledge about the root causes of gun violence is crucial to its prevention. While some empirical evidence exists regarding the impacts of social and economic factors on violence and firearm homicide rates, to the author’s knowledge, there has yet to be a comprehensive and comparative lagged, multilevel investigation of major social determinants of health in relation to firearm homicides and mass shootings.Methods and findingsThis study used negative binomial regression models and geolocated gun homicide incident data from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, to explore and compare the independent associations of key state-, county-, and neighborhood-level social determinants of health—social mobility, social capital, income inequality, racial and economic segregation, and social spending—with neighborhood firearm-related homicides and mass shootings in the United States, accounting for relevant state firearm laws and a variety of state, county, and neighborhood (census tract [CT]) characteristics. Latitude and longitude coordinates on firearm-related deaths were previously collected by the Gun Violence Archive, and then linked by the British newspaper The Guardian to CTs according to 2010 Census geographies. The study population consisted of all 74,134 CTs as defined for the 2010 Census in the 48 states of the contiguous US. The final sample spanned 70,579 CTs, containing an estimated 314,247,908 individuals, or 98% of the total US population in 2015. The analyses were based on 13,060 firearm-related deaths in 2015, with 11,244 non-mass shootings taking place in 8,673 CTs and 141 mass shootings occurring in 138 CTs. For area-level social determinants, lag periods of 3 to 17 years were examined based on existing theory, empirical evidence, and data availability. County-level institutional social capital (levels of trust in institutions), social mobility, income inequality, and public welfare spending exhibited robust relationships with CT-level gun homicide rates and the total numbers of combined non-mass and mass shooting homicide incidents and non-mass shooting homicide incidents alone. A 1–standard deviation (SD) increase in institutional social capital was linked to a 19% reduction in the homicide rate (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.81, 95% CI 0.73–0.91, p < 0.001) and a 17% decrease in the number of firearm homicide incidents (IRR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.95, p = 0.01). Upward social mobility was related to a 25% reduction in the gun homicide rate (IRR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66–0.86, p < 0.001) and a 24% decrease in the number of homicide incidents (IRR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.67–0.87, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, 1-SD increases in the neighborhood percentages of residents in poverty and males living alone were associated with 26%–27% and 12% higher homicide rates, respectively. Study limitations include possible residual confounding by factors at the individual/household level, and lack of disaggregation of gun homicide data by gender and race/ethnicity.ConclusionsThis study finds that the rich–poor gap, level of citizens’ trust in institutions, economic opportunity, and public welfare spending are all related to firearm homicide rates in the US. Further establishing the causal nature of these associations and modifying these social determinants may help to address the growing gun violence epidemic and reverse recent life expectancy declines among Americans.

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 ***** gun homicides per 100,000 of the population. In comparison, there were only **** 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 ** 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 ****** homicides in 2022, almost **** 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.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 7:11 AM EASTERN ON DEC. 1

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.

Updated dataset for the "Gun Deaths in America" project https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, documenting firearm usage fatalities.

The R code for processing the raw data is taken from https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/guns-data

I will be progressively adding the years before 2006, but the data format changed several times, so it is not as fast as I would like :-/ User guide for processing: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mortality_public_use_data.htm

Description:

This comprehensive dataset offers an in-depth look at gun-related deaths in the United States from 2012 to 2014, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It provides a rich source of information for public health research, policy development, and sociological studies, offering a nuanced understanding of the dynamics and demographics of gun-related fatalities.

Features:

• Year: The year when the death occurred, providing a temporal context.
• Month: The month of the incident, adding more granularity to the timeline.
• Intent: Categorizes the death by intent, such as suicide or homicide, essential for understanding the circumstances.
• Police: Indicates whether a police officer was involved in the death.
• Sex: The gender of the deceased, crucial for demographic analysis.
• Age: The age of the deceased, providing insights into age-related trends.
• Race: The race of the deceased, essential for understanding racial disparities.
• Place: The location of the incident, such as home or street, which can influence the context of the death.
• Education: Educational background of the deceased, offering a socio-economic dimension.

Use Case:

This dataset is highly valuable for tasks such as public health research, policy formulation in gun control, and sociological studies. It can be employed to analyze trends and patterns in gun-related deaths, assist in crafting informed laws and public safety measures, and provide a foundation for educational and awareness initiatives about gun violence and its impact on different demographic groups.

Note: - Entries are organized chronologically, capturing each recorded incident in detail. - The dataset is especially significant for examining year-on-year trends and demographic variances in gun-related fatalities, serving as a critical resource for comprehensive analysis and research.

Gun ownership in the United States is the highest in the world, and constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Firearms are widely used in the United States for self-defence, hunting, and recreational uses, such as target shooting.

Source: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nidzsharma/us-mass-shootings-19822023

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F13190980%2F56c639fee11c268267f9cf4ece33cf6a%2Fnewplot%20(6).png?generation=1680562776580204&alt=media" alt="">

Data columns:

• 0 case
• 1 location
• 2 date
• 3 summary
• 4 fatalities
• 5 injured
• 6 total_victims
• 7 location.1
• 8 age_of_shooter
• 9 prior_signs_mental_health_issues - Cleaned
• 10 mental_health_details - Cleaned
• 11 weapons_obtained_legally
• 12 where_obtained
• 13 weapon_type
• 14 weapon_details
• 15 race - cleaned
• 16 gender - cleaned
• 17 latitude - filled from location with Google Maps API
• 18 longitude - filled from location with Google Maps API
• 19 type
• 20 year - retrieved from date column
• 21 quarter - retrieved from date column
• 22 half - retrieved from date column
• 23 month_name - retrieved from date column
• 24 day_of_week - retrieved from date column
• 25 age_group - "Teenage", "Early Adulthood", "Middle Adulthood", "Old Age"
• 26 decade - retrieved from date
• 27 name - retrieved from splitting summary
• 28 current_age - retrieved from splitting summary
• 29 description - retrieved from splitting summary

Social determinants and the total number of firearm-related homicide incidents at the CT level in the contiguous US, 2015.

Context

There's currently a lack of large and easily-accessible amounts of detailed data on gun violence.

Content

This project aims to change that; we make a record of more than 260k gun violence incidents, with detailed information about each incident, available in CSV format. We hope that this will make it easier for data scientists and statisticians to study gun violence and make informed predictions about future trends.

The CSV file contains data for all recorded gun violence incidents in the US between January 2013 and March 2018, inclusive.

Acknowledgements

Where did you get the data?

The data was downloaded from gunviolencearchive.org. From the organization's description:

Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online.

How did you get the data?

Because GVA limits the number of incidents that are returned from a single query, and because the website's "Export to CSV" functionality was missing crucial fields, it was necessary to obtain this dataset using web scraping techniques.

Stage 1: For each date between 1/1/2013 and 3/31/2018, a Python script queried all incidents that happened at that particular date, then scraped the data and wrote it to a CSV file. Each month got its own CSV file, with the exception of 2013, since not many incidents were recorded from then.

Stage 2: Each entry was augmented with additional data not directly viewable from the query results page, such as participant information, geolocation data, etc.

Stage 3: The entries were sorted in order of increasing date, then merged into a single CSV file.

Inspiration

I believe there are plenty of ways this dataset can be put to good use. If you have an interesting idea or feel like messing around with the data, then go for it.

I was originally inspired to compile it in the wake of the Parkland shooting and the mass media coverage that followed. Reports like this and this showed that Nikolas Cruz had exhibited plenty of warning signs on social media before the shooting; what if we could build a machine learning system that preemptively detected such signs?

This statistic shows the number of gun deaths in the United States annually as an average from the years 2012 to 2014, by race per 100,000 population. On average, there were 20 deaths per 100,000 people annually among to the black population of the United States. The corresponding rate among the white population was nearly half at 11.2 gun deaths per 100,000 people annually.

Source

The dataset collected from "https://www.gunviolencearchive.org".

Description

The dataset contains gun violence incidents in United States between January 2014 - September 2022.

Gun Violence Data Portals Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the Global Gun Violence Data Portals market size was valued at $420 million in 2024 and is projected to reach $1.2 billion by 2033, expanding at a robust CAGR of 12.5% during the forecast period of 2025–2033. The primary driver for this impressive growth trajectory is the increasing demand for real-time, transparent, and actionable data to inform policy decisions, law enforcement strategies, and public health interventions in response to escalating gun violence incidents worldwide. As governments, non-profit organizations, and academic institutions intensify their focus on data-driven solutions to address the complex challenge of gun violence, investments in advanced data portals have surged, underpinning the expansion of this market on a global scale.

Regional Outlook

North America currently dominates the Gun Violence Data Portals market, accounting for the largest share of global revenue, estimated at over 45% in 2024. This leadership is attributed to the region's mature technology infrastructure, high-profile gun violence incidents, and the presence of established data analytics and software providers. The United States, in particular, has witnessed significant policy-driven investments and public-private partnerships aimed at enhancing data transparency and accessibility for law enforcement, academic researchers, and advocacy groups. The region’s proactive stance on leveraging digital solutions for crime prevention and public health, coupled with strong regulatory mandates around data reporting and sharing, has cemented its position as the epicenter of innovation and adoption in this space.

In contrast, the Asia Pacific region is emerging as the fastest-growing market, with a projected CAGR exceeding 15% during the forecast period. This accelerated growth is fueled by rising urbanization, increasing concerns over public safety, and the rapid digitization of government and law enforcement operations. Countries such as India, Japan, and Australia are investing heavily in cloud-based analytics platforms and collaborative data-sharing frameworks to address localized gun-related challenges and support evidence-based policymaking. The influx of foreign direct investment, coupled with government initiatives to modernize surveillance and crime reporting systems, is expected to further propel the adoption of gun violence data portals across Asia Pacific.

Meanwhile, emerging economies in Latin America and the Middle East & Africa present unique opportunities and challenges for the Gun Violence Data Portals market. While these regions are grappling with high rates of gun-related violence, the adoption of advanced data portals is often hindered by infrastructural limitations, fragmented data sources, and varying levels of digital literacy among end-users. However, targeted international funding, capacity-building programs, and regional collaborations are gradually overcoming these barriers, paving the way for localized solutions tailored to specific policy and enforcement needs. As these markets mature, the potential for scalable, cloud-based data portal solutions is expected to rise significantly, contributing to the overall global market growth.

Report Scope

The most recent rate is calculated using ACS population estimates from the previous year, unless otherwise noted. The 2020 rate is calculated using the 2019 ACS population estimates.

Data Source: DC Firearm Injury Surveillance Through Emergency Rooms (FASTER), DC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), and American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates.

Why This Matters

Firearms are one of the leading causes of death in the United States, and the leading cause of death for American youth.

Gun violence also has a larger impact on communities and families. Knowing someone who died from gun violence is associated with negative mental health outcomes.

Nationally, Black youth are killed by firearm-related incidents at five times the rate of white youth. Segregation and disinvestment in Black communities drives this disparity by reinforcing poverty and failing to provide adequate resources and amenities.

The District Response

The District of Columbia’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention was created in January 2022 to coordinate efforts to prevent gun violence. The Gun Violence Dashboards are updated daily with gun violence data from the previous day.

The Building Block Grants awards funding to community members or organizations to provide innovative programming, activities, resources, and/or services to reduce gun violence in DC neighborhoods.

The Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement’s Violence Intervention Initiative is a collaborative community engagement strategy designed to support District residents in reducing gun-related violence in our communities.

This study was undertaken to obtain information on the characteristics of gun ownership, gun-carrying practices, and weapons-related incidents in the United States -- specifically, gun use and other weapons used in self-defense against humans and animals. Data were gathered using a national random-digit-dial telephone survey. The respondents were comprised of 1,905 randomly-selected adults aged 18 and older living in the 50 United States. All interviews were completed between May 28 and July 2, 1996. The sample was designed to be a representative sample of households, not of individuals, so researchers did not interview more than one adult from each household. To start the interview, six qualifying questions were asked, dealing with (1) gun ownership, (2) gun-carrying practices, (3) gun display against the respondent, (4) gun use in self-defense against animals, (5) gun use in self-defense against people, and (6) other weapons used in self-defense. A "yes" response to a qualifying question led to a series of additional questions on the same topic as the qualifying question. Part 1, Survey Data, contains the coded data obtained during the interviews, and Part 2, Open-Ended-Verbatim Responses, consists of the answers to open-ended questions provided by the respondents. Information collected for Part 1 covers how many firearms were owned by household members, types of firearms owned (handguns, revolvers, pistols, fully automatic weapons, and assault weapons), whether the respondent personally owned a gun, reasons for owning a gun, type of gun carried, whether the gun was ever kept loaded, kept concealed, used for personal protection, or used for work, and whether the respondent had a permit to carry the gun. Additional questions focused on incidents in which a gun was displayed in a hostile manner against the respondent, including the number of times such an incident took place, the location of the event in which the gun was displayed against the respondent, whether the police were contacted, whether the individual displaying the gun was known to the respondent, whether the incident was a burglary, robbery, or other planned assault, and the number of shots fired during the incident. Variables concerning gun use by the respondent in self-defense against an animal include the number of times the respondent used a gun in this manner and whether the respondent was hunting at the time of the incident. Other variables in Part 1 deal with gun use in self-defense against people, such as the location of the event, if the other individual knew the respondent had a gun, the type of gun used, any injuries to the respondent or to the individual that required medical attention or hospitalization, whether the incident was reported to the police, whether there were any arrests, whether other weapons were used in self-defense, the type of other weapon used, location of the incident in which the other weapon was used, and whether the respondent was working as a police officer or security guard or was in the military at the time of the event. Demographic variables in Part 1 include the gender, race, age, household income, and type of community (city, suburb, or rural) in which the respondent lived. Open-ended questions asked during the interview comprise the variables in Part 2. Responses include descriptions of where the respondent was when he or she displayed a gun (in self-defense or otherwise), specific reasons why the respondent displayed a gun, how the other individual reacted when the respondent displayed the gun, how the individual knew the respondent had a gun, whether the police were contacted for specific self-defense events, and if not, why not.

Social determinants and the total number of non-mass shooting homicide incidents at the CT level in the contiguous US, 2015.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of States United to Prevent Gun Violence