Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a National Definition and Database for Nonfatal Shooting Incidents

Journal of Urban Health volume 99, pages 361–372 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

After a decades-long decline, criminal gun violence has increased dramatically in many parts of the USA. Most victims survive their gunshot wounds; however, research and data collection focus primarily on fatal events. In fact, there is no official national definition of a nonfatal shooting incident, nor a repository of these data. This definitional oversight inhibits data-informed policy and practice. The current study involves two data sources: fatal and nonfatal shooting incidents recorded in an internal metropolitan police database and official Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) violent crime data. Shooting incidents in the police database were matched to incidents in the UCR data to determine how they were officially categorized and reported to the FBI. The majority (82.0%) of nonfatal shooting incidents in the UCR data were recorded as Aggravated Assault—Gun, while 16.5% were classified as a violent crime other than an Aggravated Assault—Gun. The UCR data were missing 1.5% of the nonfatal shooting incidents documented by the police database. Almost four-fifths (79.7%) of all Aggravated Assault—Gun incidents in the UCR data did not meet the suggested definition of a nonfatal shooting incident. Overall, official crime statistics are not a good data source for nonfatal shooting incidents. A holistic response to criminal gun violence requires comprehensive, valid, and reliable data collection on all shooting incidents, especially those incidents in which a person is injured by gunfire. Establishing a national definition for a nonfatal shooting incident is the first important step toward effective gun violence prevention and reduction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/home

  2. https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/home

  3. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nedsoverview.jsp

  4. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/news/exhibit_booth/nis_brochure.jsp

  5. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

  6. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology

  7. Without belaboring the drawbacks of the UCR (see Strom & Smith, 8), it is enough to say that the FBI created the NIBRS to address the weaknesses of the UCR. In 2016, the FBI announced that it would sunset the UCR Summary Reporting System on January 1, 2021, and transition to the exclusive use of the NIBRS.

  8. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

  9. While death by suicide and suicide attempts are classified as gun violence, they are not considered criminal incidents. So they are not the focus of the criminal justice system. No valuation in this manuscript of the importance of one type of gun violence over another should be implied.

  10. For this study, each nonfatal shooting victim was still alive when the data were extracted and analyzed. UCR and NIBRS classification policy dictates that incidents in which the victim initially survives but later dies from gunshot wound-related injuries should be reclassified from the original crime type to a homicide. This reclassification can occur days, weeks, or years after the original incident date. Homicides are recorded as occurring on the date of death.

  11. The 2020 national homicide rate was not available as of this writing. As suggested by the provisional number given above, however, it is expected to increase to more than six per 100,000 people.

  12. This data collection is distinct from the federally required UCR/NIBRS crime reporting process.

  13. While most gunshot wounds are serious wounds and require medical attention, it is possible that an individual may not seek formal medical attention for a minor gunshot wound; therefore, the IMPD would not be aware of the incident.

  14. IMPD changed its records management system in June 2019. This change affected how official crime statistics were captured and reported to the FBI going forward. The reliability of data before and after the change could not be determined, thereby limiting the data source to a less traditional time construct.

  15. This figure includes the full-year data for 2019. The analysis included incidents through May 31, 2019, only.

  16. https://ucr.fbi.gov/additional-ucr-publications/ucr_handbook.pdf

  17. One of these turned out to have a case number with transposed digits, the result of a clerical error. Three others were found to be artifacts of the reporting methodology. That is, these are cases in which the victim did not die on the same day the incident occurred and/or the incident was ruled a homicide at a later date (see footnote i). The IMPD Shooting Database is continually updated; however, once UCR data are reported, they are not updated. The remaining two incidents (0.4% of fatal shooting incidents) were missing from the UCR file.

  18. Nineteen incidents in the IMPD Shooting Database had duplicate records in the UCR file. In each instance, there was a correct classification of the incident according to the Hierarchy Rule and a second, incorrect classification of the incident. The incorrect duplicate entries were excluded from the analysis.

  19. To pistol-whip is to hit or strike someone with a firearm, i.e., use a firearm as a blunt object rather than fire it.

  20. Robbery includes Attempted and Armed.

  21. These incidents were classified correctly according to the UCR Hierarchy Rule.

  22. In June 2021, the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Police Board recommended two changes to the NIBRS to facilitate capturing nonfatal shooting victims. The first would add gunshot wound as an injury category for victims; the second would capture whether a firearm was discharged and the intent of the shooter (intentional, accidental, during the commission of a crime (Parker, 2021).

  23. https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/home

References

  1. Ahmad FB, Cisewski JA. Quarterly provisional estimates for selected indicators of mortality, 2019–Quarter 1, 2021. National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics System, Vital Statistics Rapid Release Program; 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/mortality-dashboard.htm.

  2. Roman JK. The state of firearms data in 2019. Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago; 2020. 

  3. Roman JK, Cook PJ, editors. Improving data infrastructure to reduce firearms violence. Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago; 2021.

  4. Parker ST. Estimating nonfatal gunshot injury locations with natural language processing and machine learning models. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2020664–e2020664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell S, Nass D, Nguyen M. The CDC is publishing unreliable data on gun injuries. People are using it anyway. FiveThirtyEight. 2018;2018. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cdc-is-publishing-unreliable-data-on-gun-injuries-people-are-using-it-anyway/. Published 10/04/2018. Accessed December, 27, 2018.

  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Definitions for Nonfatal Injury Reports. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nonfatal_help/definitions_nonfatal.html#advancedstatistics. Published 2019. Accessed June, 30, 2021.

  7. Gruenewald J, Pizarro J, Chermak SM. Race, gender, and the newsworthiness of homicide incidents. J Crim Just. 2009;37(3):262–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Strom KJ, Smith EL. The future of crime data. Criminol Public Policy. 2017;16(4):1027–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McCormack PD, Pattavina A, Tracy PE. Assessing the coverage and representativeness of the national incident-based reporting system. Crime Delinq. 2017;63(4):493–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Parker ST. Measuring gun violence using police data. In: Roman JK, Cook PJ, editors. Improving data infrastructure to reduce firearms violence. Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago; 2021. p. 56–80.

  11. Hipple NK, Huebner BM, Lentz TS, McGarrell EF, O’Brien M. The case for studying criminal nonfatal shootings: evidence from four Midwest cities. Justice Eval J. 2020;3(1):94–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Black DJ. Production of crime rates. In: Black DJ, editor. The manners and customs of the police. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1980. p. 65–84.

  13. Jackson PG. Sources of data. In: Kempf K, editor. Measurement issues in criminology. New York, NY: Springer Publications; 1990.

  14. National Research Council. Firearms and violence: a critical review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Piquero AR, MacDonald J, Dobrin A, Daigle LE, Cullen FT. Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: assessing the general theory of crime. J Quant Criminol. 2005;21(1):55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cook PJ, Braga AA, Turchan BS, Barao LM. Why do gun murders have a higher clearance rate than gunshot assaults? Criminol Publ Policy. 2019;18(3):525–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hipple NK, Magee LA. The difference between living and dying: victim characteristics and motive among nonfatal shooting and gun homicides. Violence Vict. 2017;32(6):977–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kalesan B, Adhikarla C, Pressley JC, et al. The hidden epidemic of firearm injury: increasing firearm injury rates during 2001–2013. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;185(7):546–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Booty M, O’Dwyer J, Webster D, McCourt A, Crifasi C. Describing a “mass shooting”: the role of databases in understanding burden. Inj Epidemiol. 2019;6(1):47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Huebner BM, Hipple NK. A nonfatal shooting primer. Washington DC: Police Foundation; 2018.

  21. Hipple NK, Thompson KJ, Huebner BM, Magee LA. Understanding victim cooperation in cases of nonfatal gun assaults. Crim Justice Behav. 2019;46(12):1793–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huebner BM, Lentz TS, Schafer JA. Heard shots—call the police? An examination of citizen responses to gunfire. Justice Quarterly. 2020:1–24.

  23. Beaman V, Annest JL, Mercy JA, Kresnow M-J, Pollock DA. Lethality of firearm-related injuries in the United States population. Ann Emerg Med. 2000;35(3):258–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States, 2012: aggravated assault. United States Department of Justice. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/aggravated-assault. Published 2013. Accessed July, 3, 2019.

  25. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) User Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division; 2013.

  26. Reynolds AE. Nonfatal shootings: a comparison of unintentional and criminal incidents [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. In: University of Indianapolis; 2021.

  27. Alison LJ, Snook B, Stein KL. Unobtrusive measurement: using police information for forensic research. Qual Res. 2001;1(2):241–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States, 2018. United States Department of Justice. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/violent-crime. Published 2019. Accessed June, 21, 2021.

  29. Magee LA. Community-level social processes and firearm shooting events: a multilevel analysis. J Urban Health. 2020.

  30. Victim Rights Law Center. Mandatory reporting of non-accidental injuries: a state-by-state guide (updated May 2014). Boston, MA: Victim Rights Law Center; 2014.

  31. Fowler KA, Dahlberg LL, Haileyesus T, Annest JL. Firearm injuries in the United States. Prev Med. 2015;79:5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Loftin C, McDowall D, Curtis K, Fetzer MD. The accuracy of supplementary homicide report rates for large US Cities. Homicide Studies. Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago, 2015;19(1):6-27.

  33. Papachristos AV, Wildeman C, Roberto E. Tragic, but not random: the social contagion of nonfatal gunshot injuries. Soc Sci Med. 2015;125(1):139–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zeoli AM, Pizarro JM, Grady SC, Melde C. Homicide as infectious disease: using public health methods to investigate the diffusion of homicide. Justice Q. 2014;31(3):609–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Berg MT, Stewart EA, Schreck CJ, Simons RL. The victim–offender overlap in context: examining the role of neighborhood street culture. Criminology. 2012;50(2):359–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jennings WG, Piquero AR, Reingle JM. On the overlap between victimization and offending: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Beh. 2012;17(1):16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fox AM, Novak KJ, Van Camp T, James C. Predicting violent victimization using social network analysis from police data. Violence Vict. 2021;36(3):436–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaufman EJ, Passman JE, Jacoby SF, et al. Making the news: victim characteristics associated with media reporting on firearm injury. Prev Med. 2020;141:106275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Magee LA, Ranney ML, Fortenberry JD, Rosenman M, Gharbi S, Wiehe SE. Identifying nonfatal firearm assault incidents through linking police data and clinical records: cohort study in Indianapolis, Indiana, 2007–2016. Prev Med. 2021;149:106605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Post LA, Balsen Z, Spano R, Vaca FE. Bolstering gun injury surveillance accuracy using capture–recapture methods. J Behav Med. 2019;42(4):674–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. United States Department of Justice. 2019 national incident-based reporting system user manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division; 2018.

  42. Barber C. Improving the capacity of hospital ED data systems to track nonfatal firearm injuries. In: Roman JK, Cook PJ, editors. Improving data infrastructure to reduce firearms violence. Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago; 2021. p. 18–56.

  43. Cook PJ. Comprehensive data on gun violence: current deficits, needed investments. In: Roman JK, Cook PJ, editors. Improving data infrastructure to reduce firearms violence. Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago; 2021. p. 8–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department for their partnership and for providing access to the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University, 1033 East Third Street, 309 Sycamore Hall, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Natalie Kroovand Hipple

Authors
  1. Natalie Kroovand Hipple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Kroovand Hipple.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hipple, N.K. Towards a National Definition and Database for Nonfatal Shooting Incidents. J Urban Health 99, 361–372 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-022-00638-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-022-00638-2

Keywords

search

Navigation