The following datasets contain the crime rate for cities in the United States. The four datasets are separated based on population ranges.

FILE DESCRIPTION

File names: - 'crime_40 _60.csv': dataset for population ranging from 40,000 to 60,000. - 'crime_60 _100.csv': dataset for population ranging from 60,000 to 100,000. - 'crime_100 _250.csv': dataset for population ranging from 100,000 to 250,000. - 'crime_250 _plus.csv': dataset for population greater than 250,000.

COLUMN DESCRIPTION

For file: crime_40 _60.csv: - 'states': name of the state - 'cities': name of the city - 'population': population of the city - 'violent_crime': violent crime - 'murder': murder and nonnegligent manslaughter - 'rape': forcible rape - 'robbery': robbery - 'agrv_ The following datasets contain the crime rate for cities in the United States. The four datasets are separated based on population ranges.

FILE DESCRIPTION

File names: - 'crime_40 _60.csv': dataset for population ranging from 40,000 to 60,000. - 'crime_60 _100.csv': dataset for population ranging from 60,000 to 100,000. - 'crime_100 _250.csv': dataset for population ranging from 100,000 to 250,000. - 'crime_250 _plus.csv': dataset for population greater than 250,000.

COLUMN DESCRIPTION

For file: crime_40 _60.csv: - 'states': name of the state - 'cities': name of the city - 'population': population of the city - 'violent_crime': violent crime - 'murder': murder and nonnegligent manslaughter - 'rape': forcible rape - 'robbery': robbery - 'agrv_ assault': agrv_ assault - 'prop_crime': property crime - 'burglary': burglary - 'larceny': larceny theft - 'vehicle_theft': motor vehicle theft

crime_60 _100.csv: - 'states': name of the state - 'cities': name of the city - 'population': population of the city - 'violent_crime': violent crime - 'murder': murder and nonnegligent manslaughter - 'rape': forcible rape - 'robbery': robbery - 'agrv_ assault': agrv_ assault - 'prop_crime': property crime - 'burglary': burglary - 'larceny': larceny theft - 'vehicle_theft': motor vehicle theft

crime_100 _250.csv: - 'states': name of the state - 'cities': name of the city - 'population': population of the city - 'violent_crime': violent crime - 'murder': murder and nonnegligent manslaughter - 'rape': forcible rape - 'robbery': robbery - 'agrv_ assault': agrv_ assault - 'prop_crime': property crime - 'burglary': burglary - 'larceny': larceny theft - 'vehicle_theft': motor vehicle theft

crime_250 _plus.csv: - 'states': name of the state - 'cities': name of the city - 'population': population of the city - 'total_crime': total crime - 'murder': murder and nonnegligent manslaughter - 'rape': forcible rape - 'robbery': robbery - 'agrv_ assault': agrv_ assault - 'total_violent _crime': total violent crime - 'prop_crime': property crime - 'burglary': burglary - 'larceny': larceny theft - 'vehicle_theft': motor vehicle theft - 'tot_prop _crime': total property crime - 'arson': arson

Photo by David von Diemar on Unsplash

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.

Overview:

This project aims to investigate the potential correlation between the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of approximately 190 countries for the years 2021 and 2023 and their corresponding crime ratings. The crime ratings are represented on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating minimal or null crime activity and 10 representing the highest level of criminal activity.

Dataset:

The dataset used in this project comprises GDP data for the years 2021 and 2023 for around 190 countries, sourced from reputable international databases. Additionally, crime rating scores for the same countries and years are collected from credible sources such as governmental agencies, law enforcement organizations, or reputable research institutions.

Methodology:

• Data Collection: GDP data for 2021 and 2023, along with crime rating scores, are gathered for approximately 190 countries.
• Data Preprocessing: The collected data is cleaned and standardized to ensure consistency and compatibility across different datasets.
• Analysis: Statistical methods and data visualization techniques are employed to explore the potential relationship between GDP and crime ratings.
• Interpretation: Findings from the analysis are interpreted to determine the strength and direction of any observed correlations between GDP and crime ratings.
• Conclusion: Based on the analysis results, conclusions are drawn regarding the existence and significance of the relationship between GDP and crime ratings.

Expected Outcomes:

Identification of any significant correlations or patterns between GDP and crime ratings across different countries. Insights into the potential socioeconomic factors influencing crime rates and their relationship with economic indicators like GDP. Implications for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and researchers in understanding the dynamics between economic development and crime prevalence.

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.

Number and rate (per 100,000 population) of homicide victims, Canada and Census Metropolitan Areas, 1981 to 2024.

Measuring homicides across the world helps us understand violent crime and how people are affected by interpersonal violence.

But measuring homicides is challenging. Even homicide researchers do not always agree on whether the specific cause of death should be considered a homicide. Even when they agree on what counts as a homicide, it is difficult to count all of them.

In many countries, national civil registries do not certify most deaths or their cause. Besides lacking funds and personnel, a body has to be found to determine whether a death has happened. Authorities may also struggle to distinguish a homicide from a similar cause of death, such as an accident.

Law enforcement and criminal justice agencies collect more data on whether a death was unlawful — but their definition of unlawfulness may differ across countries and time.

Estimating homicides where neither of these sources is available or good enough is difficult. Estimates rely on inferences from similar countries and contextual factors that are based on strong assumptions. So how do researchers address these challenges and measure homicides?

In our work on homicides, we provide data from five main sources:

The WHO Mortality Database (WHO-MD)1 The Global Study on Homicide by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)2 The History of Homicide Database by Manuel Eisner (20033 and 20144) The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)5 The WHO Global Health Estimates (WHO-GHE)6 These sources all report homicides, cover many countries and years, and are frequently used by researchers and policymakers. They are not entirely separate, as they partially build upon each other.

There has been little research on United States homicide rates from a long-term perspective, primarily because there has been no consistent data series on a particular place preceding the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which began its first full year in 1931. To fill this research gap, this project created a data series on homicides per capita for New York City that spans two centuries. The goal was to create a site-specific, individual-based data series that could be used to examine major social shifts related to homicide, such as mass immigration, urban growth, war, demographic changes, and changes in laws. Data were also gathered on various other sites, particularly in England, to allow for comparisons on important issues, such as the post-World War II wave of violence. The basic approach to the data collection was to obtain the best possible estimate of annual counts and the most complete information on individual homicides. The annual count data (Parts 1 and 3) were derived from multiple sources, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports and Supplementary Homicide Reports, as well as other official counts from the New York City Police Department and the City Inspector in the early 19th century. The data include a combined count of murder and manslaughter because charge bargaining often blurs this legal distinction. The individual-level data (Part 2) were drawn from coroners' indictments held by the New York City Municipal Archives, and from daily newspapers. Duplication was avoided by keeping a record for each victim. The estimation technique known as "capture-recapture" was used to estimate homicides not listed in either source. Part 1 variables include counts of New York City homicides, arrests, and convictions, as well as the homicide rate, race or ethnicity and gender of victims, type of weapon used, and source of data. Part 2 includes the date of the murder, the age, sex, and race of the offender and victim, and whether the case led to an arrest, trial, conviction, execution, or pardon. Part 3 contains annual homicide counts and rates for various comparison sites including Liverpool, London, Kent, Canada, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco.

The 20 police stations as at 31 Jul 2015 with the highest murder rates per 100 000 population in South Africa, using the mid-term population figures released annually by Statistics SA (which are based on the 2011 census data). Research by Lizette Lancaster, ISS Manager at the Crime and Justice Information Hub, Governance, Crime and Justice Division, ISS Pretoria and Ellen Kamman, Independent Researcher

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

This dataset contains aggregate data on violent index victimizations at the quarter level of each year (i.e., January – March, April – June, July – September, October – December), from 2001 to the present (1991 to present for Homicides), with a focus on those related to gun violence. Index crimes are 10 crime types selected by the FBI (codes 1-4) for special focus due to their seriousness and frequency. This dataset includes only those index crimes that involve bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm and are reported to the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Each row is aggregated up to victimization type, age group, sex, race, and whether the victimization was domestic-related. Aggregating at the quarter level provides large enough blocks of incidents to protect anonymity while allowing the end user to observe inter-year and intra-year variation. Any row where there were fewer than three incidents during a given quarter has been deleted to help prevent re-identification of victims. For example, if there were three domestic criminal sexual assaults during January to March 2020, all victims associated with those incidents have been removed from this dataset. Human trafficking victimizations have been aggregated separately due to the extremely small number of victimizations.

This dataset includes a " GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow CPD time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information.

How does this dataset classify victims?

The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type:

Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table.

To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset.

For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization:

1. In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a first-degree murder (IUCR code = 0110) or a second-degree murder (IUCR code = 0130).
2. When a non-fatal shooting victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code that signifies a criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated battery, we enter “UNK” in the IUCR column, “YES” in the GUNSHOT_I column, and “NON-FATAL” in the PRIMARY column to indicate that the victim was non-fatally shot, but the precise IUCR code is unknown.

Other violent crime victims: For other violent crime types, we refer to the IUCR classification that exists in CPD's victim table, with only one exception:

1. When there is an incident that is associated with no victim with a matching IUCR code, we assume that this is an error. Every crime should have at least 1 victim with a matching IUCR code. In these cases, we change the IUCR code to reflect the incident IUCR code because CPD's incident table is considered to be more reliable than the victim table.

Note: All businesses identified as victims in CPD data have been removed from this dataset.

Note: The definition of “homicide” (shooting or otherwise) does not include justifiable homicide or involuntary manslaughter. This dataset also excludes any cases that CPD considers to be “unfounded” or “noncriminal.”

Note: In some instances, the police department's raw incident-level data and victim-level data that were inputs into this dataset do not align on the type of crime that occurred. In those instances, this dataset attempts to correct mismatches between incident and victim specific crime types. When it is not possible to determine which victims are associated with the most recent crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

This dataset contains individual-level homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, including homicide data from 1991 to the present, and non-fatal shooting data from 2010 to the present (2010 is the earliest available year for shooting data). This dataset includes a "GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized-access dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column. Each row represents a single victimization, i.e., a unique event when an individual became the victim of a homicide or non-fatal shooting. Each row does not represent a unique victim—if someone is victimized multiple times there will be multiple rows for each of those distinct events. The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow the Chicago Police Department (CPD) time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information. A version of this dataset with additional crime types is available by request. To make a request, please email dataportal@cityofchicago.org with the subject line: Violence Reduction Victims Access Request. Access will require an account on this site, which you may create at https://data.cityofchicago.org/signup. How does this dataset classify victims? The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type: Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table. To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset. For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization: In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a fi

This table contains data on the rate of violent crime (crimes per 1,000 population) for California, its regions, counties, cities and towns. Crime and population data are from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports. Rates above the city/town level include data from city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Ten percent of all deaths in young California adults aged 15-44 years are related to assault and homicide. In 2010, California law enforcement agencies reported 1,809 murders, 8,331 rapes, and over 95,000 aggravated assaults. African Americans in California are 11 times more likely to die of assault and homicide than Whites. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

Violent Crime in CA

Regional, County, City/Town Rates 2006-2010

By Health [source]

About this dataset

This dataset contains information on the rate of violent crime across California - its regions, counties, cities and towns. The data was collected as part of a larger effort by the Office of Health Equity to better understand public health indicators and ensure equitable outcomes for all.

The numbers reflect more than just a problem in California communities - it reflects a problem with unequal access to resources and opportunity across race, ethnicities and geographies. African Americans in California are 11 times more likely to die from assault or homicide compared to white Californians. Similarly, certain regions report higher crime rates than others at the county level- indicating underlying issues with poverty or institutionalized inequality.

Law enforcement agencies teamed up with the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ Uniform Crime Reports to collect this data table which includes details such as reported number of violent crimes (numerator), population size (denominator), rate per 1,000 population (ratex1000) confidence intervals (LL_95CI & UL_95CI ) standard errors & relative standard errors (se & rse) as well as ratios between city/town rates vs state rates (RR_city2state). Additionally, each record is classified according to region name/code and race/ethnicity code/name , giving researchers further insight into these troubling statistics at both macro and micro levels.

Armed with this information we can explore new ways identify inequitable areas and begin looking for potential solutions that combat health disparities within our communities like never before!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

The data is presented with twenty columns providing various segments within each row including:

• Crime definition
• Race/ethnicity code
• Region code
• Geographic area identifier
• Numerator and Denominator values of population
• Standard Error and 95% Confidence Intervals
• Relatvie Standard Error (RSE) value

• Ratios related to city/towns rate to state rate

  The information provided can be used for a variety of applications such as creating visualizations or developing predictive models. It is important to note that rates are expressed per 1,000 population for their respective geographic area during each period noted by the report year field within the dataset. Additionally CA_decile column may be useful in comparing counties due numerical grading system identifying a region’s percentile ranking when compared to other counties within the current year’s entire dataset as well as ratios present under RR_city2state which presents ratio comparison between city/town rate and state rate outside given geographic area have made this an extremely valuable dataset for further analysis

Research Ideas

• Developing a crime prediction and prevention program that uses machine learning models to identify criminal hotspots and direct resources to those areas
• Exploring the connection between race/ethnicity and rates of violence in California
• Creating visualizations and interactive maps to display types of violent crime across different counties within California

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0 - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. - Keep intact - all notices that refer to this license, including copyright notices. - No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. - No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Columns

File: Violent_Crime_Rate_California_2006-2010-DD.csv

File: rows.csv | Column name | Description ...

BackgroundSince 1990, the world’s homicide rate has declined by nearly 20%. While prior research has documented parallel homicide declines across many individual countries, the causes of a shared international homicide decline remain unknown. Drawing on a worldwide process of population ageing, and on research linking age to criminal activity, this study investigates the contribution of global demographic shifts to the international homicide decline.MethodsWe draw from (1) a High Coverage Sample of 126 countries since 1990, and (2) a Long Series Sample of 26 countries since 1960 and utilize fixed-effect regressions to evaluate the impact of age structure on homicide trends. In addition, we use a quantile regression to explore variations in the relationship between age structure and homicide conditional on homicide levels.FindingsResults using the High Coverage Sample suggest no relationship between age structure and homicide. However, results from the Long Series Sample suggest that changes in the relative size of countries’ youth population is a major predictor of homicide trends since 1960. In exploring this divergence, we find that the influence of age structure on homicide becomes less evident as other risk factors for violence gain prominence. Thus, while high homicide countries had the most to gain from falling homicide rates, the safety benefits of an ageing population have been concentrated among the least violent countries.InterpretationWhile the homicide declines of individual countries have often been attributed to domestic policies, the universality of international homicide trends suggests the influence of broader global phenomenon. We find that countries’ homicide trends are strongly associated with changes in the size of their youth populations, particularly where there are few competing criminogenic forces. Based on these results, we propose an explanation for the international homicide decline, while highlighting the importance of demographic patterns in explaining homicide trends.

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.

This dataset describes drug poisoning deaths at the U.S. and state level by selected demographic characteristics, and includes age-adjusted death rates for drug poisoning. Deaths are classified using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD–10). Drug-poisoning deaths are defined as having ICD–10 underlying cause-of-death codes X40–X44 (unintentional), X60–X64 (suicide), X85 (homicide), or Y10–Y14 (undetermined intent). Estimates are based on the National Vital Statistics System multiple cause-of-death mortality files (1). Age-adjusted death rates (deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population for 2000) are calculated using the direct method. Populations used for computing death rates for 2011–2017 are postcensal estimates based on the 2010 U.S. census. Rates for census years are based on populations enumerated in the corresponding censuses. Rates for noncensus years before 2010 are revised using updated intercensal population estimates and may differ from rates previously published. Death rates for some states and years may be low due to a high number of unresolved pending cases or misclassification of ICD–10 codes for unintentional poisoning as R99, “Other ill-defined and unspecified causes of mortality” (2). For example, this issue is known to affect New Jersey in 2009 and West Virginia in 2005 and 2009 but also may affect other years and other states. Drug poisoning death rates may be underestimated in those instances. REFERENCES 1. National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics System: Mortality data. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm. CDC. CDC Wonder: Underlying cause of death 1999–2016. Available from: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/ucd.html.

The RMS Crime Incidents dataset consists of crime reports from the Detroit Police Department Records Management System (RMS). This data reflects criminal offenses reported in the City of Detroit that DPD was involved in from December 2016 to present. Note that records are included in the dataset based on when an incident is reported which could result in an occurrence date before December 2016. Incident data is typically entered into mobile devices by the officer in the field when responding to an incident. Incidents that occurred in Detroit but in a location that is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan State Police (MSP) or Wayne State University Police Department (WSUPD), such as on an expressway, Belle Isle, or around Wayne State University, are included only if the incident is handled by DPD. Such records are reviewed in a monthly audit to ensure that the incidents are counted by one and only one agency (MSP or DPD). This data is updated daily. For each crime incident, one or more offense charges are recorded, and each row in the dataset corresponds with one of these charges. An example could be a domestic assault where property was also vandalized. Offense charges that occurred at the same crime incident share a common incident number. For each offense charge record (rows)details include when and where the incident occurred, the nature of the offense, DPD precinct or detail, and the case investigation status. Locations of incidents associated with each call are reported based on the nearest intersection to protect the privacy of individuals.RMS Crime Incident data complies with Michigan Incident Crime Reporting (MICR) standards. More information about MICR standards is available via the MICR Website. The Manual and Arrest Charge Code Card may be especially helpful. There may be small differences between RMS Crime Incident data shared here and data shared through MICR given data presented here is updated here more frequently which results in a difference in a cadence of status updates. Additionally, this dataset includes crime incidents that following an investigation are coded with a case status of ‘Unfounded’. In most cases, this means that the incident occurred outside the jurisdiction of DPD or otherwise was reported in error. The State of Michigan, through the MICR program, reports data to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).Yearly Datasets for RMS Crime Incidents have been added to the ODP. This is to improve the user's experience in handling the large file size of the records in the comprehensive dataset. You may download each year separately, which significantly reduces the size and records for each file. In addition to the past years, we have also included a year-to-date dataset. This captures all RMS Crime Incidents from January 1, 2025, to present.Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Commanding Officer of the Detroit Police Department's Crime Data Analytics at 313-596-2250 or CrimeIntelligenceBureau@detroitmi.gov.

Context

1 in 4 mass shooting victims were children and teens. In the years between 2009 and 2020, the horrific scenes of mass shootings have haunted the nation’s collective conscience.US states with weaker gun laws and higher gun ownership rates have higher rates of mass shootings. Mass shooting is defined as any incident in which four or more people are shot and killed, excluding the shooter. The number of mass shootings that plague this country is far too high, and the counts are just a small fraction of the lives left forever changed after the tragedy of a mass shooting. So here is the data for list of mass shootings in United States from 2018 - 2022.

Content

This dataset has five csv files of years 2018 - 2022. Each data contains following attributes - Date : The date on which the mass shooting incident happened - State : The state where the incident took place - Dead : total number of people died in mass shooting - Injured: total number of people who got injured in mass shooting- - Total : total of dead and injured people - Description : description/short report of the incident which may include information like gender/place etc. Data for 2022 Mass shootings will be updated every 15 days!

Acknowledgements

This data was scraped from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States using BeautifulSoup.

Image banner by Wall Street Journal

Inspiration

• EDA and Viz.
• Which state has highest number of mass shootings
• Contextual analysis of the description column
• Trend of mass shooting in past years
• Number of people killed/injured on an average in a month.

Check out my other works

• Datasets
• Notebooks

The violent crime rate indicator includes both the total number of violent crime incidents per year in Champaign County, and the number of violent crime incidents per 100,000 people per year in Champaign County. “Violent crimes” are those counted in the following categories in the Illinois State Police’s annual Crime in Illinois report: Criminal Homicide, Criminal Sexual Assault (Rape), Robbery, Aggravated Assault, and Aggravated Battery. The incidence of violent crime is an integral part of understanding the safety of a given community.

Both the total number of offenses in Champaign County and the rate per 100,000 population were significantly lower in 2021 than at the start of the measured time period, 1996. The most recent rise in both of these figures was in 2019-2020, before falling again in 2021. The year with the lowest number of total offenses and the rate per 100,000 population in the study period was 2015; both measures are slightly higher since then.

This data is sourced from the Illinois State Police’s annually released Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report, available on the Uniform Crime Report Index Offense Explorer.

Sources: Illinois State Police. (2021). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2021. Illinois State Police. (2020). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2020. Illinois State Police. (2019). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2019. Illinois State Police. (2018). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2018. Illinois State Police. (2017). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2017.Illinois State Police. (2016). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2016. Illinois State Police. (2015). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2015. Illinois State Police. (2014). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2014.; Illinois State Police. (2012). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2012.; Illinois State Police. (2011). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2010-2011.; Illinois State Police. (2009). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2009.; Illinois State Police. (2007). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2007.; Illinois State Police. (2005). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2005.; Illinois State Police. (2003). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2003.; Illinois State Police. (2001). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 2001.; Illinois State Police. (1999). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 1999.; Illinois State Police. (1997). Crime in Illinois: Annual Uniform Crime Report 1997.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily Tuesday through Sunday. The dataset contains more than 65,000 records/rows of data and cannot be viewed in full in Microsoft Excel. Therefore, when downloading the file, select CSV from the Export menu. Open the file in an ASCII text editor, such as Wordpad, to view and search. To access a list of Chicago Police Department - Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (IUCR) codes, go to http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Chicago-Police-Department-Illinois-Uniform-Crime-R/c7ck-438e