Veterans far more likely to be mass shooters than transgenders

[CaptUSA]

About 5 percent of adults between the ages of 18 - 29 identify as trans. Robin Westman was 23. The Nashville shooter was also in her 20s.

Lol - so, you're ignoring the question, but further refining the ages of the shooters? You know if you do that, you're also excluding the number of total shooters in that 73, so the percentage of trans shooters goes up?

Nah, this is just about manipulating numbers to try to support your notions.

 

[Invisible Man]

About 5% of young adults in the U.S. say their gender is different from their sex assigned at birth

1.6% of U.S. adults are transgender or nonbinary. Also, a rising share of Americans say they know someone who is transgender.

www.pewresearch.org

About 5 percent of adults between the ages of 18 - 29 identify as trans. Robin Westman was 23. The Nashville shooter was also in her 20s.

Some things I notice in your source for this 5 percent claim.

The 5% is not just trans. It's trans plus nonbinary. The trans portion of that is 2 percent and the nonbinary portion is 3 percent. Out of all adults, it's 0.6% trans (notably lower than the 1% reported earlier in this thread) and 1 percent nonbinary.

Also, this is based on people's responses to an anonymous survey. It does not say anything about how people represent themselves in public.

The other part of the survey is about how many people know a trans person. In this part of the survey, only 44% of all adults report that they know any trans people at all. So 56% of adults report that they do not even know one single trans person. Even within the 18-29 age group, only 52 percent report knowing even one trans person.

Consider that.

If a full 2 percent of people ages 18-29 identify as trans in this anonymous survey, how is it possible for a full 48 percent of 18-29-year-olds to report that they don't even know a single trans person. The average person knows easily hundreds of other people.

In order for these survey results to hold, it must be the case that the great majority of these people who identify as trans in their anonymous survey responses are not recognizable as trans to most of the people who know them. Perhaps some of so successfully transitioned that they pass as the opposite sex without anyone questioning it. But I think probably more of them simply go along with public expectations and publicly identify as their biological sex, while privately struggling with identifying as the opposite sex. What they say about how they identify themselves in this anonymous survey doesn't match how they identify themselves to most of the people who know them in their day-to-day lives.

These distinctions about who is being counted as trans and in what context make a big difference when trying to compare the percent of mass shooters who are trans with overall population.

Out of the 297 mass shooters in 2025, how many of them belong to that 0.6% of the adult population who anonymously tell survey takers that they identify with the opposite of their biological sex? We have no way of knowing to total. But we have at least two confirmed cases, which is 0.7% of the total, meaning that even if we could count all 295 of the others as confirmed non-transgender (which we can't, using the same criteria by which it was determined that 0.6% of the population is transgender), it would still mean that transgender people have been over-represented among mass shooters so far in 2025. Since the actual number of transgender mass shooters (again, using the same criteria that is being used to count the percent of the overall population) is surely higher than just the two out-and-proud ones we know about, their over-representation is higher.

And this is without excluding gang-related and drug-related cases.

 

[jmdrake]

Lol - so, you're ignoring the question, but further refining the ages of the shooters? You know if you do that, you're also excluding the number of total shooters in that 73, so the percentage of trans shooters goes up?

Nah, this is just about manipulating numbers to try to support your notions.

Dude, you're slow. The median age of mass shooters is 34. They range from age 11 to age 70. (See: https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/) Nobody over the age of 70 is going out in their wheelchairs and doing mass shootings. But people over the age of 70 are included in your large N for showing how "small" the transgender population is with regards to the rest of the U.S. population. And why are there no few old transgenders? It's because 50 years ago there were few transgenders period. In another 50 years, unless a LARGE percentage of the 5% of people 18-29 detransition or die, 5% of the total U.S. population will be transgender. Thus your entire argument is basically non-sensical.

 

[jmdrake]

Some things I notice in your source for this 5 percent claim.

The 5% is not just trans. It's trans plus nonbinary. The trans portion of that is 2 percent and the nonbinary portion is 3 percent. Out of all adults, it's 0.6% trans (notably lower than the 1% reported earlier in this thread) and 1 percent nonbinary.

Right. And @CaptUSA identified 4 trans and nonbinary shooters to come up with his 5% number. (2 trans, 2 nonbinary). But transgenders and non-binaries are not uniformly distributed by age (skew young) and mass shooters are not uniformly distributed by age (skew young as well). So Capt's "N" is way too large even if he isn't willing to admit it.

 

[jmdrake]

I would also note it's both comical and horrifying that there's an entire category of mass shootings that needs to be accounted for, solely dedicated to black on black violence.

That tells you something

"Oh.. that's a gang mass shooting... doesn't count "

The CIA flooded the black community with crack at the same time the DEA was running an "war on drugs" in the black community and disfunction resulted. Quell surprise.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00845R000100170001-8.pdf

 

[acptulsa]

The CIA flooded the black community with crack at the same time the DEA was running an "war on drugs" in the black community and disfunction resulted. Quell surprise.

There it is. Government creates problems, and racial groups argue over who is handling those problems better. I guess that's a source of pride, but as the British say, "What's this in aid of?"

It should be obvious who the real enemy is. The CIA, deep state, forces of darkness,whatever you want to call them, is winding the dumber, more impressionable members of each demographic up and siccing them on each other. If we want it to stop we have to stop being distracted by what's distracting those idiots and deal with the source.

 

[CaptUSA]

Dude, you're slow. The median age of mass shooters is 34. They range from age 11 to age 70. (See: https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/) Nobody over the age of 70 is going out in their wheelchairs and doing mass shootings. But people over the age of 70 are included in your large N for showing how "small" the transgender population is with regards to the rest of the U.S. population. And why are there no few old transgenders? It's because 50 years ago there were few transgenders period. In another 50 years, unless a LARGE percentage of the 5% of people 18-29 detransition or die, 5% of the total U.S. population will be transgender. Thus your entire argument is basically non-sensical.

JM, take a rest. This is so weak.

My AI query showed 4 out of the 73 shooters in the last 10 years were trans/non-binary. 5.5%
If you want to limit that to the number of shooters between the ages of 18 and 29 to suit your 5% demo, then the 4 trans/non-binary shooters will still be included while several of the non-trans/non-binary shooters would be excluded. So instead of 4 of 73, it'll be 4 of ~48. about 8.3%

You should see that you're trying to manipulate the data to suit your premise.

 

[jmdrake]

JM, take a rest. This is so weak.

My AI query showed 4 out of the 73 shooters in the last 10 years were trans/non-binary. 5.5%
If you want to limit that to the number of shooters between the ages of 18 and 29 to suit your 5% demo, then the 4 trans/non-binary shooters will still be included while several of the non-trans/non-binary shooters would be excluded. So instead of 4 of 73, it'll be 4 of ~48. about 8.3%

You should see that you're trying to manipulate the data to suit your premise.

No. YOU are the one manipulating the data and arguing through projection. You can't honestly think that you can ignore the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of trans people are under the age of 40 and try to compare it to the entire population of the United States and think that you've actually proven anything.

 

[PAF]

JM, take a rest. This is so weak.

My AI query showed 4 out of the 73 shooters in the last 10 years were trans/non-binary. 5.5%
If you want to limit that to the number of shooters between the ages of 18 and 29 to suit your 5% demo, then the 4 trans/non-binary shooters will still be included while several of the non-trans/non-binary shooters would be excluded. So instead of 4 of 73, it'll be 4 of ~48. about 8.3%

You should see that you're trying to manipulate the data to suit your premise.

Capt, take a rest. This is so weak.

Those or any other numbers and stats can/will change at any given moment, especially when .gov is behind it.

Read @acptulsa 's response in Post #86, it's much more productive than tossing a football around. [Yo! Where's the ball!]

 

[Anti Federalist]

There it is. Government creates problems, and racial groups argue over who is handling those problems better. I guess that's a source of pride, but as the British say, "What's this in aid of?"

It should be obvious who the real enemy is. The CIA, deep state, forces of darkness,whatever you want to call them, is winding the dumber, more impressionable members of each demographic up and siccing them on each other. If we want it to stop we have to stop being distracted by what's distracting those idiots and deal with the source.

What government has done, which it is bad enough all by itself, is force us, at gunpoint, to live amongst each other and have Whites get slaughtered for it.

70 years ago it was the same old shit.

And if you go back 140 years, you'd find it was the same old shit, yet again.

Jim Crow and segregation was not in place to lord over blacks and being petty about bus seating and water fountains.

It was to protect Whites from the bloodshed, murder and mayhem of blacks.

Scott Adams is right, this is not fixable.

 

[jmdrake]

The only thing government has done, and it is bad enough all by itself, is force us, at gunpoint, to live amongst each other and have Whites get slaughtered for it.

70 years ago it was the same old shit.

And if you go back 140 years, you'd find it was the same old shit, yet again.

Scott Adams is right, this is not fixable.

The fix is simple for anyone honest enough to look at it.

'Millionaire adopts town. Crime halved, graduation rates skyrocket'

Jan 1, 2015

Not sure what forum this belongs in but....

http://www.today.com/news/millionaire-uses-fortune-help-kids-struggling-town-1C9373666
Harris Rosen went from a childhood in a rough New York City neighborhood to becoming a millionaire whose company owns seven hotels in Orlando, but his self-made success is not his proudest achievement.

Twenty years ago, the Orlando, Fla. neighborhood of Tangelo Park was a crime-infested place where people were afraid to walk down the street. The graduation rate at the local high school was 25 percent. Having amassed a fortune from his success in the...

• jmdrake
• Replies: 32
• Forum: Political Philosophy & Government Policy

• 

 

[acptulsa]

The only thing government has done, and it is bad enough all by itself, is force us, at gunpoint, to live amongst each other and have Whites get slaughtered for it.

You figure that's it, huh? Old LBJ and the congress in the sixties set up a system where women were paid to have children, but only paid if they kicked daddy out. And that went on for sixty years. Are you saying government didn't do that, or that it had no effect? Government set up a system wherein women have huge financial incentives to follow their fickleness and who cares if the man about the house, if any, is closely enough related to the kids to understand where they're coming from. Are you saying that didn't happen, or that it has no effect? Psychiatry, under government's thumb, stopped pursuing the root causes of problems in favor of pharmaceutical "solutions", and excluded friends and family who may have insights, and who may be willing and able to help, from the process. Didn't happen or didn't affect anything?

I never say "the only thing government has done..." because government is a huge and tireless army of busybodies simultaneously mucking up millions of things at once.

 

[Invisible Man]

You figure that's it, huh? Old LBJ and the congress in the sixties set up a system where women were paid to have children, but only paid if they kicked daddy out. And that went on for sixty years. Are you saying government didn't do that, or that it had no effect? Government set up a system wherein women have huge financial incentives to follow their fickleness and who cares if the man about the house, if any, is closely enough related to the kids to understand where they're coming from. Are you saying that didn't happen, or that it has no effect? Psychiatry, under government's thumb, stopped pursuing the root causes of problems in favor of pharmaceutical "solutions", and excluded friends and family who may have insights, and who may be willing and able to help, from the process. Didn't happen or didn't affect anything?

I never say "the only thing government has done..." because government is a huge and tireless army of busybodies simultaneously mucking up millions of things at once.

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed: Riley, Jason L.: 9781594038419: Amazon.com: Books

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed [Riley, Jason L.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed

a.co

 

[TheTexan]

It should be obvious who the real enemy is. The CIA, deep state, forces of darkness,whatever you want to call them, is winding the dumber, more impressionable members of each demographic up and siccing them on each other. If we want it to stop we have to stop being distracted by what's distracting those idiots and deal with the source.

The source are the people voting for it.

You can blame the government all you want but I believe in personal accountability.

"Oh I'm too stupid to make my own decisions so I let the government manipulate me into their agenda" <-- this is not a valid excuse

 

[TheTexan]

Same thing with these gang shootings.

"Oh the government gave us crack and then made it illegal its all their fault I am a gang member" <-- also not a valid excuse

 

[PAF]

70 years ago it was the same old shit.

And if you go back 140 years, you'd find it was the same old shit, yet again.

Those are just growing pains.

In a hundred years or so, or even less, everybody in the world will be mixed breed which is almost the same as being one breed. By then, real aliens from another planet will come and the "one united people" of earth will start a war with them instead of each other.

Maybe by then they will invent one of those caves, similar to the ones where they store every agricultural seed, and store one of your ancestors in it for future generations to say whoa check it out!

 

[Invisible Man]

Those are just growing pains.

In a hundred years or so, or even less, everybody in the world will be mixed breed which is almost the same as being one breed. By then, real aliens from another planet will come and the "one united people" of earth will start a war with them instead of each other.

Maybe by then they will invent one of those caves, similar to the ones where they store every agricultural seed, and store one of your ancestors in it for future generations to say whoa check it out!

In AF's thinking, what you are describing is genocide.

Granted, this is an abuse of the English language. Nevertheless, that crowd persists in using the word that way, keeping a straight face while they do, and as far as I can tell, not seeing anything odd about it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You figure that's it, huh? Old LBJ and the congress in the sixties set up a system where women were paid to have children, but only paid if they kicked daddy out. And that went on for sixty years. Are you saying government didn't do that, or that it had no effect? Government set up a system wherein women have huge financial incentives to follow their fickleness and who cares if the man about the house, if any, is closely enough related to the kids to understand where they're coming from. Are you saying that didn't happen, or that it has no effect? Psychiatry, under government's thumb, stopped pursuing the root causes of problems in favor of pharmaceutical "solutions", and excluded friends and family who may have insights, and who may be willing and able to help, from the process. Didn't happen or didn't affect anything?

I never say "the only thing government has done..." because government is a huge and tireless army of busybodies simultaneously mucking up millions of things at once.

I'm saying it really made no difference.

Not to blacks anyway, in regard to crime.

But it is doing a helluva job on Whites and their families, posterity and legacy.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Those are just growing pains.

In a hundred years or so, or even less, everybody in the world will be mixed breed which is almost the same as being one breed. By then, real aliens from another planet will come and the "one united people" of earth will start a war with them instead of each other.

Maybe by then they will invent one of those caves, similar to the ones where they store every agricultural seed, and store one of your ancestors in it for future generations to say whoa check it out!

I thought you cared about liberty and freedom?

 

[Anti Federalist]

In AF's thinking, what you are describing is genocide.

Granted, this is an abuse of the English language. Nevertheless, that crowd persists in using the word that way, keeping a straight face while they do, and as far as I can tell, not seeing anything odd about it.

Genocide is defined under international law by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Yes, it is genocide.