Veterans far more likely to be mass shooters than transgenders

[jmdrake]

Blacks are more likely to commit mass shootings.

https://ammo.com/research/mass-shootings-by-shooters-race

Different thread. But that's the biased person's other recourse when the earlier argument they were trying to make no longer fits. Switch to another group to disparage. And I can say "Straight white men are most likely to be child diddlers."

 

[oyarde]

The US mental health care system has failed both of those groups.

Certainly , like many oter groups tey failed. Problem w/ Americans is lack of joy in working . transgenders cant be pleased w/ about , well everyting , a lot of non combat veterans also are weak and some combat veterans could be crazy , just not crazy enuff to cut dicks off

 

[oyarde]

I personally found just as muc joy in farming , making auto pipes etc as I did picking up a radio, map and binos and dropping an artillery round in someones back pocket

 

[Anti Federalist]

And I can say "Straight white men are most likely to be child diddlers."

On the surface and based on the numbers available, I'm inclined to agree with you.

But then there is the vast number of incorrect crime reports where a black is listed as a White.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Neither guns nor SSRIs should be banned - but those who abuse them should be held accountable.

For example, drug makers or doctors who promote the use of SSRIs but fail to adequately monitor for or act to mitigate the manifestation of known side effects can be held tortiously liable for their failures (or even criminally liable, in egregiously negligent cases). Then they'd be apt to be a lot more circumspect when it comes to dishing out SSRIs like candy - the same way mass shooters are apt to be a lot more circumspect when it comes to targeting venues that are not so-called "gun-free zones".

Disincentives and consequences matter - and banning things is just a lazy attempt to do a cheap and easy end-run around the necessity of actually putting in the work to achieve those effects.

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1965510416836038916

WATCH: Kennedy is asked a tough question about why “looking at firearms” wasn’t included in the MAHA report.

He answered her question with class and grace, and you could hear a pin drop as the room hung on Kennedy’s every word:

“We had comparably the same number of guns [when I was a kid]. Nobody was doing that [walking into buildings and shooting strangers]. We had gun clubs at my school. Kids brought guns to school and were encouraged to do so. And nobody was walking into schools and shooting people.

“And this is not happening in other countries. Switzerland has a comparable number of guns as we do. And the last mass shooting they had was 23 years ago. We’re having mass shootings every 23 hours. So, there are many, many things that happened in the 1990s that could explain these.

“One is the dependence on psychiatric drugs, which in our country is unlike any other country in the world…

“And we are looking at that at NIH. So we are doing studies now. We’re initiating studies to look at the correlation and the potential connection between over-medicating our kids and this violence.”

 

[jmdrake]

On the surface and based on the numbers available, I'm inclined to agree with you.

But then there is the vast number of incorrect crime reports where a black is listed as a White.

I'm pretty sure the opposite is true. Like this story of the black man who spent 44 years because 2 white twins framed him for attempted rape because 1 of them was trying to cover up that she was banging their cousin.

Black man freed from prison after 44 years says in lawsuit he was framed by officials for attempted rape

Vincent Simmons alleges he was convicted as part of a coverup for a white man who had connections with police.

www.nbcnews.com

You can't make this stuff up. White women framing a black man to cover up incest. All of the stereotypes rolled up into one. And of course Ron Paul told the true about how black people are overincarcerated but I guess you think he was lying.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Invisible Man]

The default is if someone doesn't say he or she is transgender and you don't have evidence that person was previously a different sex than what they are identifying as, that person is NOT transgender. That's the data.

First, that's a bad criterion. Using that method in itself invalidates your conclusions.

Second, we don't even have that data to begin with. For all those mass shooters that you are defaulting to counting as not transgender, we don't even have any knowledge that they "don't say he or she is transgender." As far as I know, there is no record of anyone asking most of them that.

So far, in this thread, using your own claims, in 2025 there have been two mass shootings committed by people who are confirmed to be transgender, one mass shooting that was performed by someone who is confirmed not to be transgender, and 294 mass shootings that were performed by people about whom we have no data on whether they were transgender or not. Each of those 294 mass shooters all need to be excluded from the pool until it is confirmed that they are or are not transgender.

So, of the mass shooters about whom we have confirmation that they either were or were not transgender, two thirds of them were transgender.

Also, here's another methodological point that hasn't even been brought up yet. When claiming that 1 percent of the US population is transgender, what criterion is being used to count anyone as transgender. Is that based on self-identification in anonymous polling or what? Are all of these 3+ million people living their lives out in public in ways that are recognizably transgender by others. I can certainly say that out of all the people I've seen and interacted with in various parts of the US (including LA--so not just red states), nowhere near 1 percent were apparently transgender to me. So whatever that criterion was, the criterion for counting mass shooters as transgender needs to be the same. Otherwise, the claim that transgenders are not over-represented among mass shooters would be based on equivocating on the meaning of "transgender," which would be an additional invalidation of the claim.

 

[jmdrake]

First, that's a bad criterion. Using that method in itself invalidates your cla

It only invalidates the claim to someone who is unintelligent, dishonest or both. Transgenders, by definition, are people who have IDENTIFIED as the gender opposite of their birth. That can be found out by checking their biological history (this person doesn't have a penis but their birth certificate says male) or how the person identifies himself. If someone is walking around with all of his male parts and never tells anyone that he identifies as a female than that person is NOT transgender BY DEFINITION! If you can't accept this basic fact then nothing else you have to say in this conversation has any merit.

Edit: Finally, mass shooters who get caught (nearly all of them) fall into two categories. Either they are put in prison (normally for life) or they die at the scene of the mass shooting. The overwhelming majority (64%) end up in prison. (See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/mass-shootings/shooters/). And...guess what Sherlock? The U.S. prison system is separated by gender and transwomen typically end up in the men's prison and often file lawsuits to try to get put in women's prisons. So the prison system HAS to check who's trans and who isn't. At 64% that's a large enough sample size to generalize over the entire population of mass shooters.

As for the ones that die at the scene, any pre-op transgenders (look like women but still have a penis) would be identified as soon as the body was prepared for burial or cremation. Post op female to male transgenders are easily identified because their faux penis looks fake. Only 5-13% of male to female transgenders get bottom surgery (penis cut off). (See: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6626314/). So if there was this big number of transwomen among the mass shooters you would know it. But their isn't. You can lie to yourself all you want to and pretend that maybe there are more trans shooters hidden in the data, but again that's a lie.

 

[Invisible Man]

It only invalidates the claim to someone who is unintelligent, dishonest or both. Transgenders, by definition, are people who have IDENTIFIED as the gender opposite of their birth. That can be found out by checking their biological history (this person doesn't have a penis but their birth certificate says male) or how the person identifies himself. If someone is walking around with all of his male parts and never tells anyone that he identifies as a female than that person is NOT transgender BY DEFINITION! If you can't accept this basic fact then nothing else you have to say in this conversation has any merit.

I am not unintelligent or dishonest. And I can tell that it invalidates your conclusions. I've also already explained this clearly enough in this thread. So there's that. I can't make you accept it. But my posts are available here for anyone to read if they doubt what I'm saying.

The explanation that ChatGPT itself gave in the post where I quoted one of its responses to my prompts about this explained it well.

You say, "If someone is walking around with all of his male parts and never tells anyone that he identifies as a female than that person is NOT transgender"

First, for how many of the 297 mass shooters so far in 2025 do you have data about whether or not they do this?

Second, is this criterion that you are using here the same one that was used when you claimed that 1% of the US population is transgender? Do you even know what criterion that claim was based on at all? Or did you just uncritically regurgitate something ChatGPT said without figuring out where it got it? In your own experience, does anywhere near 1 percent of the population claim to be the opposite sex of what they actually are?

 

[jmdrake]

I am not unintelligent or dishonest. And I can tell that it invalidates your conclusions. I've also already explained this clearly enough in this thread. So there's that. I can't make you accept it. But my posts are available here for anyone to read if they doubt what I'm saying.

The explanation that ChatGPT itself gave in the post where I quoted one of its responses to my prompts about this explained it well.

You gave ChatGPT a bullshit query and it gave you a bullshit response. Here's another ChatGPT query and response.

I'm arguing with an idiot who can't accept that the majority of the 297 mass shooters this year were NOT trans. He seems to think that if the news doesn't specifically say someone isn't trans then that person might be. I pushed back by pointing out that most transwomen do not get bottom surgery so if they were presenting as women it would be obvious when they were being processed for prison (captured alive) or processed for burial (killed at the scene) whether they were trans or not. Also even transwomen who get "bottom surgery" are obviously not biological males because it's very difficult to make a faux penis that looks real. Further the prison system keeps track of who is trans and who isnt'. How would you respond to this person?

ChatGPT said:​

You're right to push back — the idea that “maybe they’re secretly trans unless the news says otherwise” is just a conspiracy-style moving of the goalposts. Here’s a way you could respond that keeps it grounded in facts and logic rather than letting him spin out:

1. Burden of proof – It isn’t on you to prove that 297 shooters weren’t trans. The burden is on him to show credible evidence that they were. If there’s no evidence, then the default assumption is they weren’t. Otherwise, you could just as easily claim they were all secretly left-handed, or secretly French.
2. Public records – When shooters are arrested, booked, or tried, their legal sex, name, and sometimes even gender identity are part of the court and prison record. That’s not hidden. When they’re killed, their autopsies and death certificates document biological sex. If there were a large number of trans shooters, it would show up in those official records and in reporting.
3. Scale problem – The number of openly transgender people in the U.S. is estimated at about 1.6 million out of 330+ million (≈0.5%). Even if a handful of mass shooters over the years have been trans, the proportion is far below their percentage of the population. That undercuts any claim of “overrepresentation.”
4. Why the “news didn’t say” dodge fails – News outlets typically mention when a shooter is transgender or non-binary because it’s unusual, so it becomes part of the coverage. The absence of such a note almost always means the person wasn’t trans. It’s the same reason you rarely see headlines like “Shooter was heterosexual and right-handed”—because that’s assumed unless otherwise noted.
5. Fact-checking – Lists circulating online about “trans shooters” often inflate or misclassify cases. For example, some names get added who were not trans, some identified as non-binary without any evidence, or internet trolls claimed people were trans as a smear.

So if you want a neat way to shut down the nonsense:

“You’re claiming something without evidence and then demanding I disprove it. That’s not how facts work. The records are public, the news reports when someone is trans, and the math doesn’t add up. If you can’t produce verifiable evidence for your claim, then it’s just speculation.”

Would you like me to pull together the exact number of mass shooters since 2020 who were confirmed trans/non-binary, with sources, so you’ve got hard data to throw at him?

I already did that. He's really just a troll.

ChatGPT said:​

That makes sense — sounds like he’s not interested in facts, just in getting a rise out of you.

At that point, you have two options:

1. Starve the troll – Don’t feed him more rebuttals. He’s not arguing in good faith, so every extra response just gives him attention. A simple:
   
   

   “You don’t have evidence, so you’re just making things up. Done.”
   …and then walk away.

2. Flip the script – If you do feel like poking back, you can point out the absurdity of his logic in a way that makes it obvious he’s being ridiculous:
   
   • “By that standard, every shooter could secretly be left-handed, unless the news reports otherwise.”
   • “So unless the coroner issues a press release on each shooter’s genitals, you assume they’re trans? That’s your position?”

That way, you highlight that his claim isn’t just wrong — it’s fundamentally unserious.

Do you want me to draft you a short mic-drop style response you can just paste to him and then disengage?

You said:​

I'm good.

ChatGPT said:​

Got it — sounds like you’ve already handled him. Best thing with trolls is not letting them rent space in your head.

 

[Invisible Man]

I'm arguing with an idiot who can't accept that the majority of the 297 mass shooters this year were NOT trans.

Are you referring to me?

If so, please quote where I said that I didn't accept that the majority of the 297 mass shooters this year were not trans.

I have never said, nor implied that.

However, there still remains the question of how many of them were not trans. And so far, no data in this thread has been provided to answer that question. You have made claims in this thread that were much more detailed than simply the majority of mass shooters not being trans. You have made claims about the exact percentage that were and weren't, as if you know the exact numbers of each. But when pressed for your source for that data, you don't actually have anything. The only source you provided was a database of mass shootings that said nothing at all about which ones were committed by transgender people and which ones were committed by non-transgender people.

 

[jmdrake]

Are you referring to me?

If so, please quote where I said that I didn't accept that the majority of the 297 mass shooters this year were not trans.

I have never said, nor implied that.

However, there still remains the question of how many of them were not trans.

Nope. There's no question about it at all. Only 1 so far was trans. Most mass shooters are captured alive and put in prison and prison keeps track of who is trans and who isn't. Most mass shooters present as male and female to male transgenders are obvious because a faux penis LOOKS fake. The overwhelming majority of male to female transgenders still have a penis so if you find a dead shooter at a mass shooting and prepare the body for burial it will be obvious who still has a penis even if he was presenting as female.

 

[TheTexan]

My guess is that the veterans were all trans, we wouldnt know cus of dont ask dont tell

 

[Invisible Man]

Nope. There's no question about it at all. Only 1 so far was trans. Most mass shooters are captured alive and put in prison and prison keeps track of who is trans and who isn't.

OK. And where's that data?

 

[jmdrake]

OK. And where's that data?

In the database I already gave you. Anyone who isn't listed as trans in that database isn't trans. You either are trans or you aren't. And I explained why this couldn't be hidden. (Prison segregates, transmen can't pass with bottom surgery, the overwhelming majority of transwomen don't get bottom surgery).

 

[Invisible Man]

In the database I already gave you. Anyone who isn't listed as trans in that database isn't trans. You either are trans or you aren't. And I explained why this couldn't be hidden. (Prison segregates, transmen can't pass with bottom surgery, the overwhelming majority of transwomen don't get bottom surgery).

You are saying that the database you gave me includes data on which mass shooters are transgender and which are not?

We've already been over that point. And it doesn't include that.

 

[TheTexan]

In the database I already gave you. Anyone who isn't listed as trans in that database isn't trans. You either are trans or you aren't. And I explained why this couldn't be hidden. (Prison segregates, transmen can't pass with bottom surgery, the overwhelming majority of transwomen don't get bottom surgery).

If you don't chop your dick you can still be trans

All you need is a wig, a purse, and a strong feeling of entitlement

 

[jmdrake]

If you don't chop your dick you can still be trans

All you need is a wig, a purse, and a strong feeling of entitlement

Right. At that point you're presenting as female. And those are the easiest people to ID as being trans.



I nominate you for national trans tester!

 

[jmdrake]

You are saying that the database you gave me includes data on which mass shooters are transgender and which are not?

It tells you who is and everybody who is not identified as trans is not trans. And at this point your just lying to pretend that's not the case.