Veterans far more likely to be mass shooters than transgenders

[jmdrake]

Now do SSRI's. Highly prescribed to ex-military and transgender, alike.

I don't want them "banned", but I do want them to be closely monitored. Depending on the individual, they can do a lot of good. But there are side effects that affect a percentage of the population. Curiously, they have to admit "suicidal ideation" as a potential side effect, but "homicidal ideation" is neurologically the same thing. I guess that would look bad on a label.

As far as data goes, transgenders are prescribed SSRI's at a MUCH higher rate than the rest of the population.
https://ronpaulforums.com/threads/m...ic-school-shooting.572277/page-4#post-7311147

A quick google search indicates Veterans are prescribed those drugs at about 22-23%, compared to the general population (around 13%) - not to mention UNprescribed brain altering drugs.

Agree entirely.

A good first step would be a push for subpoenaing medical records of those who commit random acts of violence. If SSRI's are found, more scrutiny is warranted about the circumstances around patient and the prescribing doctor. The pharmaceutical industry is adamantly opposed to that kind of clarity and will send their team of lawyers to prevent it.

A little sunshine may be all that is needed to add the threat of culpability which will ensure they will be more diligent in the rules for prescription of these drugs.

Yeah, there are some funky things being done with those numbers there. <in case anyone needs a lesson in trusting AI>

For example, the latest shooting in MN didn't get counted because there were only 3 fatalities, while there were 18 injuries. When I asked AI what percentage of the general population will commit a mass shooting, it tells me: 0.0000022%. When I asked it what percentage of the trans or non-binary population will commit a mass shooting, it replies:

I’m sorry, but I can’t help with that. You might try looking at overall mass‐shooter demographics from public safety reports or academic studies, which typically break down factors like age, location, or mental health—but not by gender identity, since that would risk stigmatizing a protected group.

You're arguing with a meme???

My AI query gave this: So about 1% representation committing 5-6% of the mass shootings.

To be clear, I think you can probably get those programs to tell you whatever you want. The initial responses, though, are almost always tilted towards the prevailing government narrative.

So I've quoted (I think) everything you've said in this thread so far and ^that is the only place where I see you say "My AI query gave this: So about 1% representation committing 5-6% of the mass shootings." and you didn't actually post what the AI said so I have no idea if what your query had any validity to it. I'm fairly certain that it doesn't. There have been 297 mass shootings in the United States THIS YEAR! https://www.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts. 5% of that would be 14.85. So far there has only been ONE transgender mass shooter in 2025. If you go from 2020 to now it only gets worse. One database shows 3106 mass shootings since 2020. (See: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/). Only 2 of those can be positively identified as trans leaves 0.06 percent.

I'll be GENEROUS to you. Assume that everyone on this supposed "trans shooter list" was actually trans (the Uvalde shooter clearly was not) and all of these shootings happened since 2020 (most of them didn't).

You still end up with only 0.24% of mass shooters being trans! Your "5-6%" number is just BS. Oh, and your prompt engineering was speculative. "When I asked it what percentage of the trans or non-binary population will commit a mass shooting," There is an old saying "garbage in--garbage out." Asking an AI model to predict some highly speculative generalized future event is unlikely to get good results. Asking it about what's already happened is better. Looking back over the past decade trans people make up about 0.11% of mass shooters. The AI found this from th actual Reuters article that sourced the Gun Violence Archive database.

See: https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-people-idUSL1N363273/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The Gun Violence Archive, which began collecting data on gun violence in the U.S. in 2013 (here), (here), recorded more than 4,400 mass shootings in the last decade, Executive Director Mark Bryant told Reuters via email. Its definition of mass shooting is four or more people shot resulting in injury or death (excluding the perpetrator).

Of those, “the number of known suspects in mass shootings which are trans is under 10 for the last decade,” which translated to “1:880 [or 0.11%] of the 4,400 shootings” they recorded, he said.
And...that backs up exactly what I've been saying all along.

 

[Invisible Man]

There have been 297 mass shootings in the United States THIS YEAR! https://www.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts. 5% of that would be 14.85. So far there has only been ONE transgender mass shooter in 2025.

How can you possibly know that all of the other 296 mass shooters this year are not transgender?

 

[jmdrake]

How can you possibly know that all of the other 296 mass shooters this year are not transgender?

I'm going by the alt-right list that's being passed around. Are you saying their lying? At this point the burden is on YOU to find all of these other transgender mass shooters you want to believe are out there.

 

[Invisible Man]

I'm going by the alt-right list that's being passed around. Are you saying their lying? At this point the burden is on YOU to find all of these other transgender mass shooters you want to believe are out there.

I don't know anything about any alt-right list. So I'm certainly not going to accept it as solid data. The fact that it's alt-right does not engender confidence in it.

And no, if somebody makes an assertion, whether that be you, I, or ChatGPT, then the burdern is on them to have a sound basis for that assertion, or else to qualify it appropriately.

A claim was made earlier in this thread that, "Transgender individuals are not disproportionately represented among mass shooters based on available evidence."

This assertion was made without any valid basis. I have not said that the claim is either true or false. I have made no assertions that require proof other than simply to point out the fact that that claim was not a valid conclusion to draw from the argument that was laid out for it. And I have already proved that.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't know anything about any alt-right list. So I'm certainly not going to accept it as solid data. The fact that it's alt-right does not engender confidence in it.

And no, if somebody makes an assertion, whether that be you, I, or ChatGPT, then the burdern is on them to have a sound basis for that assertion, or else to qualify it appropriately.

A claim was made earlier in this thread that, "Transgender individuals are not disproportionately represented among mass shooters based on available evidence."

This assertion was made without any valid basis. I have not said that the claim is either true or false. I have made no assertions that require proof other than simply to point out the fact that that claim was not a valid conclusion to draw from the argument that was laid out for it. And I have already proved that.

The assertion is based on a publicly avaible database that I have linked to and you can take and examine do your heart's content. At thist point I don't think you're being serious or even attempting to have an honest debate. I could say the statistics about black crime are "made without any valid basis" because I haven't specifically going through the FBI numbers and cross checked every single incident and looked up the person's picture to make sure that person was black. Your argument is basically aruging to throw out ALL crime statistics as somehow invalid just because you don't like the results in this case.

 

[Invisible Man]

The assertion is based on a publicly avaible database that I have linked to and you can take and examine do your heart's content. At thist point I don't think you're being serious or even attempting to have an honest debate. I could say the statistics about black crime are "made without any valid basis" because I haven't specifically going through the FBI numbers and cross checked every single incident and looked up the person's picture to make sure that person was black. Your argument is basically aruging to throw out ALL crime statistics as somehow invalid just because you don't like the results in this case.

You're saying there's a publicly available database that says there have been 296 confirmed non-transgender mass shooters so far in 2025?

I'm calling your bluff. Please share a link to this database.

Also, it wouldn't just be a matter of checking people's pictures. To be honest, I don't even know how you would go about getting this data. It wouldn't be easy.

So far, just going by the claims you've made so far on this thread, there have been two mass shooters so far in 2025 who were confirmed transgender, and one (the Uvalde one) who has been confirmed not to be transgender. Just going by that data, that's 2/3 of all mass shooters about whom we have confirmation of their being transgender or not were transgender.

 

[jmdrake]

You're saying there's a publicly available database that says there have been 296 confirmed non-transgender mass shooters so far in 2025?

I'm calling your bluff. Please share a link to this database.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

And that was linked from the CNN article I posted earlier.

https://www.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts

And it's actually 297. I mistyped earlier. But there you go. Enjoy!

 

[Invisible Man]

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

And that was linked from the CNN article I posted earlier.

https://www.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts

And it's actually 297. I mistyped earlier. But there you go. Enjoy!

I don't see anywhere in that database that it says which mass shooters have been confirmed to be not transgender.

 

[Invisible Man]

Your argument is basically aruging to throw out ALL crime statistics as somehow invalid just because you don't like the results in this case.

No, my argument is nothing like that. Because in this case, we don't have any statistics available to us about what percentage of mass shootings over any time period at all were committed by transgender people.

All we have in this thread is an assertion about what that percentage is that came from ChatGPT and that, upon examination, has proved to be invalid.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't see anywhere in that database that it says which mass shooters have been confirmed to be not transgender.

The database has the name of the shooters. News resports report if they are trans. If there is no report that the shooter is trans any INTELLIGENT person counts that as a non-trans shooter. Note emphasis on the word INTELLIGENT.

No, my argument is nothing like that. Because in this case, we don't have any statistics available to us about what percentage of mass shootings over any time period at all were committed by transgender people.

All we have in this thread is an assertion about what that percentage is that came from ChatGPT and that, upon examination, has proved to be invalid.

Also from a CNN article that cited a gun violence database. If you want to make up a bullshyt argument, and it is bullshyt, that the database must specifically say "This person is trans" then that's on you. Whenever there's a trans shooter there's 1) question about which pronouns to use and 2) mention of their trans status in the new article. Fox News mentions the trans status of mass shooters, in the RARE cases that when the happen, in order to whip up hysteria. CNN and MSNBC mention the status in order to not "misgender" the trans shooters for whatever stupid reason.

Finally, BY DEFINITION being trans is someone's gender IDENTITY. So if you have an obvious male and that person isn't going around saying "I'm trans", that person is NOT trans. If that person has done such a good job transiitioning that they get mistaken for their preferred gender, when their background is researched it still comes out that they are trans. That's why you end up with transwomen who can totally pass for biological women still being put in men's prison.

Case in point:

 

[Invisible Man]

If there is no report that the shooter is trans any INTELLIGENT person counts that as a non-trans shooter. Note emphasis on the word INTELLIGENT.

And that is the problem with your method.

You think that to count someone as trans, you need a news report confirming they're trans, whereas to count someone as non-trans, all you need is for them to exist and to not be aware of any news report that confirms they're trans.

The intelligent person would only base such a statistic on actual known cases where we have confirmation of whether a shooter was trans or not. Any cases where that is lacking need to be excluded from the total.

 

[Invisible Man]

Also from a CNN article that cited a gun violence database. If you want to make up a bullshyt argument, and it is bullshyt, that the database must specifically say "This person is trans" then that's on you.

The point of which shooters are trans and which aren't is the entire issue I've been discussing this whole time. If the database doesn't provide that information it contributes nothing.

 

[jmdrake]

And that is the problem with your method.

You think that to count someone as trans, you need a news report confirming they're trans, whereas to count someone as non-trans, all you need is for them to exist and to not be aware of any news report that confirms they're trans.

You need SOMETHING to confirm they are trans or you're just spouting bullshyt! I don't have a "problem with my method." You just don't like it because you'd rather may shyt up than have any grounding in reality.

The intelligent person would only base such a statistic on actual known cases where we have confirmation of whether a shooter was trans or not. Any cases where that is lacking need to be excluded from the total.

A "known statistics" has to be grounded in reality. And we have confirmation that the shooter is trans when the news report looks into their background. You are dishonestly expecting the news to report everything that is NOT found out about someone. (He's NOT trans. He's NOT a Satanist. He's NOT a polygamist.) That's NOT how such a news report could even work. When a reporter looking into a shooter's background they find the facts that are TRUE about the person instead of going through some arbitrary made up list of things to say what the person is NOT. Really you're not being honest.

 

[CaptUSA]

So I've quoted (I think) everything you've said in this thread so far and ^that is the only place where I see you say "My AI query gave this: So about 1% representation committing 5-6% of the mass shootings." and you didn't actually post what the AI said so I have no idea if what your query had any validity to it. I'm fairly certain that it doesn't.

Yeah, go ahead and omit the post where I laid it out. https://ronpaulforums.com/threads/v...ooters-than-transgenders.572364/#post-7313174

Let's make it REAL simple:

How many mass shooting with no connection to gangs or drugs were committed in the last 10 years?
According to the Stanford University “Mass Shootings in America” Data Project—which defines a mass shooting as three or more people shot in one incident in a public place, excluding events tied to gangs, drugs, or other criminal enterprises—there were 73 such incidents in the United States between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2024.

How many of those were committed by transgender or non-binary suspects
According to a Newsweek count of high-fatality, non–gang/drug-related mass shootings since 2015, four of those incidents were carried out by perpetrators publicly identified as transgender or non-binary. (And newsweek used the Gun Violence Archive)

What percentage of the population identifies as transgender or non-binary in the US
Based on the most recent and comprehensive data:

U.S. Population Identifying as Transgender or Non-Binary​

• Overall (ages 13+): Approximately 2.8 million people, or 1.0% of the U.S. population aged 13 and older, identify as transgender or non-binary.

These figures come from large-scale national surveys like the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), and Pew Research polling.

So, 1 percent of the population committed 5-6% of the mass shootings where gangs and drugs were not involved.

 

[Invisible Man]

You need SOMETHING to confirm they are trans or you're just spouting bullshyt!

I agree. And you also need SOMETHING to confirm the ones that aren't trans.

 

[Invisible Man]

You are dishonestly expecting the news to report everything that is NOT found out about someone. (He's NOT trans. He's NOT a Satanist. He's NOT a polygamist.) That's NOT how such a news report could even work. When a reporter looking into a shooter's background they find the facts that are TRUE about the person instead of going through some arbitrary made up list of things to say what the person is NOT. Really you're not being honest.

No. I'm not expecting news reports to do that. I'm just saying that absent that data, we can't just by default count everyone as not trans. We have to set aside all those shooters about whom we lack that information and not include them in the statistics.

 

[tebowlives]

Now do one using single parenthood

 

[Anti Federalist]

Blacks are more likely to commit mass shootings.

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

 

[oyarde]

I don't dispute the veteran factor at all.

But I think using a timeframe of "since 2000" stacks the deck to understate the transgender factor. It may be true that 1% of the population is transgender today (which in itself is a horrifying statistic to me if it's really that high). But if so, then most of that 1% is young people. In 2000, it would have been more like 0.1% of the population. It's only recently that the number dramatically increased. I think if you use a timeframe of "since 2020," transgenders will be over represented.

Veterans are about ten percent of adult population , or about 6 percent of population or about 16 million,so it is comparing 100s of tousands to a smaller sect of mentally itll genital nutilators. Id say apples and oranges

 

[jmdrake]

No. I'm not expecting news reports to do that. I'm just saying that absent that data, we can't just by default count everyone as not trans. We have to set aside all those shooters about whom we lack that information and not include them in the statistics.

So the data is not absent. 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.