Скачать или смотреть The first ever global Mass Shooting database: why are we building it

Why a global mass shooting database is long overdue

The world suffers from a data deficit. While mass shootings dominate headlines in the United States, little is known about their frequency, nature or consequences elsewhere. Existing databases are overwhelmingly American in focus, and global comparisons are weak, inconsistent or absent. To fill that void, Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) has launched the 21st Century Global Mass Shooting Database—an effort to record and analyse every civilian mass shooting worldwide since 2000. The aim is not simply to count corpses, but to build an evidence base for policy, journalism and prevention.

The project defines mass shootings as incidents where four or more people are shot, excluding the perpetrator, in non-conflict settings. That excludes warzones such as Sudan or Ukraine but captures violence in homes, schools, places of worship and streets from Uganda to Venezuela. Many such incidents go unreported in international media and are missing from existing datasets. By drawing on local-language sources and volunteer researchers, the initiative hopes to correct this imbalance.

Preliminary data suggests that the US still dominates numerically—but this may reflect reporting biases as much as reality. Globally, shooters are typically men in their 30s, often with a history of trauma or domestic violence. But American patterns may not be universal. In some regions, mass shootings resemble political executions, criminal reprisals or acts of terror. Domestic settings, especially in Latin America and Asia, may be more prominent than the school or workplace shootings that dominate Western media.

Weapons vary. In the US, the AR-15 rifle is infamous. Globally, handguns appear more common. Some weapons are legally acquired; others come from the black market, conflict zones or online grey markets. Tracking weapon types, sources and laws may offer insights into what legal regimes correlate with fewer shootings—though enforcement matters more than statutes.

Victims are often women, children or members of marginalised groups. Many attacks begin with domestic abuse. Gender and race play a role not only in who dies, but in how their deaths are covered. The media often frames white male shooters as mentally ill, while portraying others as terrorists or gang members. Such framing may skew public response—and policy.

Media coverage itself may fuel copycats. Some perpetrators leak intent or livestream attacks. Others leave manifestos. AOAV’s database will record such behaviour, where known, to explore the link between coverage and repetition. It may also inform future ethical standards in reporting.

The database is ambitious but pragmatic. It will evolve. The initial threshold of “four shot” may later shift to “four killed” for comparability. Gaps will remain, especially in poorly reported regions. But no one has yet attempted a global, open-access register of this kind. By building it, AOAV hopes to inform not just debate, but action. Few problems are more pressing—or more poorly understood.