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 Balkan countries Montenegro and Albania have the highest murder rates with cases involving firearms in Europe. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Sweden came third. The Scandinavian country has seen increasing levels of gang-related violence in recent years.

From 2013 to 2019, the United States had a gun homicide rate of 4.38 per 100,000 residents, the most out of any other G7 country. In comparison, Canada had a gun homicide rate of 0.67 per 100,000 residents while France had a gun homicide rate of 0.4 per 100,000 residents.

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.

The average for 2017 based on 35 countries was 1.7 homicides per 100,000 people. The highest value was in Russia: 9.2 homicides per 100,000 people and the lowest value was in Luxembourg: 0.3 homicides per 100,000 people. The indicator is available from 1990 to 2017. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Sweden crime rate per 100K population for 2021 was 1.08, a 9.72% decline from 2020.

<ul style='margin-top:20px;'>

<li>Sweden crime rate per 100K population for 2020 was <strong>1.20</strong>, a <strong>10.63% increase</strong> from 2019.</li>
<li>Sweden crime rate per 100K population for 2019 was <strong>1.08</strong>, a <strong>1.71% increase</strong> from 2018.</li>
<li>Sweden crime rate per 100K population for 2018 was <strong>1.06</strong>, a <strong>5.4% decline</strong> from 2017.</li>
</ul>Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.

Turks and Caicos Islands saw a murder rate of ***** per 100,000 inhabitants, making it the most dangerous country for this kind of crime worldwide as of 2024. Interestingly, El Salvador, which long had the highest global homicide rates, has dropped out of the top 29 after a high number of gang members have been incarcerated. Meanwhile, Colima in Mexico was the most dangerous city for murders. Violent conflicts worldwide Notably, these figures do not include deaths that resulted from war or a violent conflict. While there is a persistent number of conflicts worldwide, resulting casualties are not considered murders. Partially due to this reason, homicide rates in Latin America are higher than those in Afghanistan or Syria. A different definition of murder in these circumstances could change the rate significantly in some countries. Causes of death Also, noteworthy is that murders are usually not random events. In the United States, the circumstances of murders are most commonly arguments, followed by narcotics incidents and robberies. Additionally, murders are not a leading cause of death. Heart diseases, strokes and cancer pose a greater threat to life than violent crime.

Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide (total firearms; handgun; rifle or shotgun; fully automatic firearm; sawed-off rifle or shotgun; firearm-like weapons; other firearms, type unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2018.

The United States had, by far, the highest homicide rate of the G7 countries between 2000 and 2023. In 2023, it reached 5.76 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, a decrease from 6.78 in 2021. By comparison, Canada, the G7 nation with the second-highest homicide rate, had 1.98 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2023. Out of each G7 nation, Japan had the lowest rate with 0.23 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.

Introduction

Gun Violence Statistics: The phrase 'gun violence' is an umbrella term that portrays the correlation between guns, death, crimes, and injuries. Sadly, this vague expression may shift the attention away from the hard facts that need to be used in crafting solutions. Gun violence is still predominately a problem in several regions across the globe, with the United States being the most affected country.

However, even after the deadline, the disturbing dissertation, without a single powerful indicator, points to a possible improvement in gun violence. Thus, this piece of work gives some of the key numbers, trends, and figures with Gun Violence statistics.

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 2023.

In Europe, the Baltic countries of Latvia and Lithuania had the highest and third highest homicide rates respectively in 2022. Latvia had the highest rate at over four per 100,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, the lowest homicide rate was found in Liechtenstein, with zero murders The most dangerous country worldwide Saint Kitts and Nevis is the world's most dangerous country to live in in terms of murder rate. The Caribbean country had a homicide rate of 65 per 100,000 inhabitants. Nine of the 10 countries with the highest murder rates worldwide are located in Latin America and the Caribbean. Whereas Celaya in Mexico was listed as the city with the highest murder rate worldwide, Colima in Mexico was the city with the highest homicide rate in Latin America, so the numbers vary from source to source. Nevertheless, several Mexican cities rank among the deadliest in the world when it comes to intentional homicides. Violent conflicts worldwide Notably, these figures do not include deaths that resulted from war or a violent conflict. While there is a persistent number of conflicts worldwide, resulting casualties are not considered murders. Partially due to this reason, homicide rates in Latin America are higher than those in countries such as Ukraine or the DR Congo. A different definition of murder in these circumstances could change the rate significantly.

South Korea crime rate per 100K population for 2021 was 0.52, a 12.31% decline from 2020.

<ul style='margin-top:20px;'>

<li>South Korea crime rate per 100K population for 2020 was <strong>0.59</strong>, a <strong>3.62% increase</strong> from 2019.</li>
<li>South Korea crime rate per 100K population for 2019 was <strong>0.57</strong>, a <strong>4.12% decline</strong> from 2018.</li>
<li>South Korea crime rate per 100K population for 2018 was <strong>0.60</strong>, a <strong>2.33% increase</strong> from 2017.</li>
</ul>Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 2:11 PM EASTERN ON JULY 4

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.

The United States is ranked first in gun possession globally and is among the countries suffering the most from firearm violence. Several aspects of the US firearm ecosystem have been detailed over the years, mostly focusing on nation- or state-level phenomena. Systematic, high-resolution studies that compare US cities are largely lacking, leaving several questions open. For example, how does firearm violence vary with the population size of a US city? Are guns more prevalent and accessible in larger cities? In search of answers to these questions, we apply urban scaling theory, which has been instrumental in understanding the present and future of urbanization for the past 15 years. We collate a dataset about firearm violence, accessibility and ownership in 929 cities, ranging from 10,000 to 20,000,000 people. We discover superlinear scaling of firearm violence (measured through the incidence of firearm homicides and armed robberies) and sublinear scaling of both firearm ownership (inferred from the percentage of suicides that are committed with firearm) and firearm accessibility (measured as the prevalence of federal firearm-selling licenses). To investigate the mechanism underlying the US firearm ecosystem, we establish a novel information-theoretic methodology that infers associations from the variance of urban features about scaling laws. We unveil influence of violence and firearm accessibility on firearm ownership, which we model through a Cobb–Douglas function. Such an influence suggests that self-protection could be a critical driver of firearm ownership in US cities, whose extent is moderated by access to firearms.

Kenya crime rate per 100K population for 2021 was 5.27, a 47.51% increase from 2020.

<ul style='margin-top:20px;'>

<li>Kenya crime rate per 100K population for 2020 was <strong>3.58</strong>, a <strong>15.61% increase</strong> from 2019.</li>
<li>Kenya crime rate per 100K population for 2019 was <strong>3.09</strong>, a <strong>1.52% decline</strong> from 2018.</li>
<li>Kenya crime rate per 100K population for 2018 was <strong>3.14</strong>, a <strong>37.65% decline</strong> from 2017.</li>
</ul>Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.

Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 7,159 homicides in 2023. This is followed by firearms of an unstated type, with 5,295 cases in that year. Why do murders happen in the U.S.? While most of the time the circumstances of murders in the U.S. remain unknown, homicides due to narcotics come in as the second most common circumstance – making them more common than, for example, gang killings. Despite these gruesome facts, the violent crime rate has fallen significantly since 1990, and the United States is much safer than it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Knife crime vs disease: Leading causes of death The death rate in the U.S. had hovered around the same level since 1990 until there was a large increase due to the COVID-19 pandemic in recent years. Heart disease, cancer, and accidents were the three leading causes of death in the country in 2022. The rate of death from heart disease is significantly higher than the homicide rate in the United States, at 167.2 deaths per 100,000 population compared to a 5.7 homicides per 100,000. Given just 1,562 murders were caused by knife crime, it is fair to say that heart disease is a far bigger killer in the U.S.

Iceland was the most peaceful country in the world in 2024 with an index value of 1.1. Ireland, Austria, and New Zealand followed behind.What is the Global Peace Index? The Global Peace Index is an effort by the Institute for Economics and Peace to measure the degree of peacefulness in countries across the world and rank them accordingly. The first list was created in 2007 and has since then been published annually. The index includes a number of indicators relating to both domestic and international peacefulness. International indicators In regards to international affairs the majority of indicators relate to involvement in military conflict or the efforts of the state in question to resolve conflict and ensure the safety of those affected. For example those states that give more financial support to UN peacekeeping missions are considered to be more peaceful while those who have a higher military expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) are considered to be less peaceful. The United States never reached the top 20 of the list, in part due to it having a high level of military spending as a percentage of GDP. Domestic factors Domestic indicators focus on both the amount of violence and crime in addition to incarceration rates. Again, the United States fails to reach levels akin to other countries. The country’s incarceration rates are significantly higher than in other OEDC countries. Moreover, the number of deaths from gun violence also contributes to the relatively low peacefulness ranking of the United States.

BackgroundGaps remained in the updated information of the firearm violence (FV) burden from a global landscape. Understanding the global burden of FV could contribute to decision-making.MethodsData on the FV burden, including physical violence by firearm (PVF), self-harm by firearm (SHF), and unintentional firearm injuries (UFI), were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease 2019. The temporal trends of age-standardized rate (ASR) were estimated using estimated annual percentage change (EAPC).ResultsIn 2019, PVF, SHF, and UFI reported 710.64 × 103, 335.25 × 103, and 2,133.88 × 103, respectively, incident cases worldwide. Their ASR (/100,000 people-years) were 9.31, 4.05, and 28.07. During 1990–2019, the overall incident ASRs of PVF presented an increasing trend (EAPC = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 0.75). Notably, pronounced increasing trends were observed in Tropical Latin America, and North Africa and Middle East. However, incident trends of SHF and UFI declined globally, with the respective EAPCs being −0.68 (95% CI: −0.83 to −0.54) and −0.98 (95% CI: −1.19 to −0.77). In 2019, the ASR of death due to PVF, SHF, and UFI were 2.23, 0.65, and 0.26, and that of DALYs were 127.56, 28.10, and 17.64, respectively. Decreasing trends in the ASRs of FV were observed in most regions and countries worldwide over the past three decades, particularly that of PVF in Estonia.ConclusionThe FV burden was heterogeneous across regions and countries, which was deeply subjected to socioeconomic factors. The findings highlighted that specific prevention strategies and interventions were required, particularly in the high prevalent settings.

The lever-pulling model was first developed as part of a broad-based, problem-solving effort implemented in Boston in the mid-1990s. The lever-pulling strategy was a foundational element of many collaborative partnerships across the country and it was a central element of the strategic plans of many Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) jurisdictions. This effort attempted to deter the future violent behavior of chronic offenders by first communicating directly to them about the impact that violence had on the community and the implementation of new efforts to respond to it, and then giving credibility to this communication effort by using all available legal sanctions (i.e., levers) against these offenders when violence occurred. The purpose of the study was to perform an experimental evaluation of a lever-pulling strategy implemented in Indianapolis, Indiana. Probationers were randomly assigned to the law enforcement focused lever-pulling group, the community leader lever-pulling group, or a regular probation control group during six months between June 2003 and March 2004. There were a total of 540 probationers in the study--180 probationers in each group. Probationers in the law enforcement focused lever-pulling group had face-to-face meetings with federal and local law enforcement officials and primarily received a deterrence-based message, but community officials also discussed various types of job and treatment opportunities. In contrast, probationers in the community leader lever-pulling group attended meetings with community leaders and service providers who exclusively focused on the impact of violence on the community and available services. Three types of data were collected to assess perceptions about the meeting: offending behavior, program participation behavior, and the levers pulled. First, data were collected using a self-report survey instrument (Part 1). Second, the complete criminal history for probationers (Part 2) was collected one-year after their meeting date. Third, all available probation data (Part 3) were collected 365 days after the meeting date. Part 1, Self-Report Survey Data, includes a total of 316 variables related to the following three types of data: Section I: meeting evaluation and perception of risk, Section II: Self-reported offense and gun use behavior, and Section III: Demographics. Part 2, Criminal History Data, includes a total of 94 variables collected about the probationer's complete offending history as well as their criminal activities after the treatment for one year. Part 3, Probation Data, includes a total of 249 variables related to probation history and other outcome data.