I think the transgender shooter RATE might be higher if you compare the RATES based on their respective populations. Example: Group A: Population = 100 people. Shooters: 10 people Group B: Population = 100,000 people. Shooters: 100 people Rates: Group A = 10 % shooters Group B = 0.1 % shooters
Except, it STILL won't compare to what the rate is for cis white men. You are trying so hard to inflate a rate that is statistically so insignificant, it might as well not even exist relative to the rate committed by cis white men.
I did the math for you. Cisgender white men are responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings, with a per capita rate of approximately 21.6 mass shootings per million cisgender white men.
Transgender individuals of any race are linked to a much smaller number of shootings, giving a per capita rate of roughly 1.8 mass shootings per million transgender individuals.
Cisgender White Men (CWM) Population: US total population ≈ 330,000,000 White: ~60% Male: ~49% CWM percentage ≈ 0.60 × 0.49 = 0.294 (29.4%) CWM population=330,000,000×0.294=96,900,000
Mass shootings attributed Mass shootings (2018–2025): ≈ 4,100 (generous estimate for 25 years) Percentage by white men: 52.3% (NIJ data) Percentage male shooters: 97.7% CWM share=4100×0.523×0.977≈2090 Per capita rate (per 1,000,000): CWM rate=2090/(96,900,000/1,000,000)=2090/96.9≈21.6
Transgender Individuals (TI) (All Races) Population: Est. at 1% of US pop. Trans pop.=330,000,000×0.01=3,300,000 Mass shootings attributed: Known cases: ~6 in last 25 years (generous upper est.; some sources count only 4) Per capita rate (per 1,000,000): Trans rate= 6/(3,300,000/1,000,000)=6/3.3≈1.8
Those are some very impressive calculations. Seriously: Kudos! What was your source for numbers of "mass shootings"? 4.000 mass shootings in 7 years sounds insane. Where did that number come from?
That 4100 number is an estimate using the GVA "mass shootings" defintion. BTW, the ChatGPT5 convo I posted went on to tell me that my own assumptions were padded in favor of the argument you were making. The actual data shows that the comparison is even less statistically significant than I found.
No, it actually supports my claim and narrows the data I used (which favored YOU). My findings are wrong because the comparison is LESS than I said.
You previously said this so I went with the highest numbers possible to steelman your argument as best I could:
Appreciated. I am enjoying this debate with you because you are being honest.
We're both making claims we have not provided any evidence for. It's time for some data.
I literally just did the math for you. The rate for CWM mass shooter per capita is 21.6. The rate for transgender mass shooter per capita is 1.8. 21.6 to 1.8. Which number is bigger? Which number is bigger by a whole lot?
And I consulted a frontier model AI to double check my math and work:
Yes, I saw that. I just wonder if the BASIS of your calculations is flawed. The UNDERLYING data. That 's why I asked for the source of your data. Why are you hesitant to provide it?
I'm not hesitant. I literally just told you. The Gun Violence Archive lists 4000 mass shootings since 2018 alone. I extrapolated upward just a little to account for the last 25 years, which is what I was trying to figure out.
GVA uses a "broad definition of mass shooting". The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) has a slight to moderate left-center bias, often cited by anti-gun advocates due to its broad definition of "mass shooting" (four or more people shot).
Critics argue this inflates numbers compared to stricter FBI or NIJ definitions, potentially skewing perceptions. However, GVA's data collection from over 7,500 sources is rigorous, earning high factual credibility.
Its funding, primarily from left-leaning philanthropist Michael Klein, and minor ties to groups like the Joyce Foundation, suggest some influence
Do you realize that having a bigger number only helped YOUR argument, not mine? You seem to not really be understanding here. I steelmanned your argument for you using the broadest possible definition and numbers. Narrower is better for ME, not you.
How? A bigger total number, with a small trans population and small trans shooter number, makes the white male side proportionally larger. Am I overlooking something?
