It would, but staking the claim that trans people commit mass shooting ≈6 times less per capita than cis people would probably be a harder pill to swallow for the average transphobe than the raw number, not to mention less visually impactful. I would still like to see the per capita results below though, at the very least.
I was going off the napkin math of the other commenter, but doing some of my own:
Highest estimates place trans people at or less than 1% of the population
Trans people committed 3/2829 mass shootings, or about 0.1% of mass shootings
Therefore, cis people commit mass shootings the other 99.9% of the time, despite being only 99% of the population.
You can extrapolate specific per capita data if you’d like. From the data though, which isn’t disputed unless you’re making stuff up on Faux News with no sources, trans people are drastically underrepresented in mass shooting perpetrators compared to their percentage of the population. Ten times less.
What? Yes it does. Whether you do (3/(total population of trans people))/(2826/(total cis pop)) or 0.1%/(total population percentage of trans people) it’s the exact same calculation. It all cancels out.
Edit: if you know the percentage of mass shooters that are trans vs cis, you can extrapolate the per capita data using population percentages.
Second edit, for clarity: You can do this because you’re either cisgender or you’re trans. There aren’t other population groups to account for. For the purposes of the data, trans is an umbrella term that means “not cis.” If trans people committed 0.1% of mass shootings, and represent at most 1% of the population, then you can clearly see that trans people commit mass shootings at a rate of 0.1/1 or 10% that of cis people.
We know how roughly many trans people there are, and we know roughly how many cis people there are. We divide those two to get 1%. We do the same thing with the number of mass shooters, and we get 0.1%. These are in the same units, of trans/cis, and so when we divide them, we get the direct rate of 0.1 or 10%.
Well, the original post seems to think so. It’s important either way to make sure that the stats used actually support the underlying conclusion. Magas want to show correlation between trans and gun violence, so if there is in fact a higher prevalence of shooters among the trans group, which this post does not address.
I’m only looking at the argument itself, not its content, because regardless what the case is, trans people should enjoy the same liberties and respect that any other human being does. If it is shown that trans people are in fact more likely to commit gun violence then the causes for that should be explored, but it wouldn’t mean that therefore trans people should be persecuted. It’s pretty obvious the ease of access to guns, the lack of social safety nets, access to mental health care, massive income inequality, and other factors play a much more significant role.
i think fighting their firehose of bullshit is a waste of time, and that’s why the firehose of bullshit is so effective.
anyone with a fraction of sense won’t fall for that, and it makes people waste time and energy fighting trolls.
I’m cis, so besides solidarity, i have no skin on that specific issue, but the same techniques are used on communities I belong to. like “they are eating the cats, they are eating the dogs
…”, it’s useless to waste energy on those claims, and “debating” them gives them attention and from the media point of view, it turns into a two sided debate.
I rather focus on building communities and solidarity to fix this nation without the consent or participation of those bigots.
![worrisome trend [OC]](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/f38e921b-f1eb-4b93-aa16-f42013fd7c8b.webp){kind=link}
A more meaningful metric would be % of trans/non trans in each reapective group committing mass shootings.
It would, but staking the claim that trans people commit mass shooting ≈6 times less per capita than cis people would probably be a harder pill to swallow for the average transphobe than the raw number, not to mention less visually impactful. I would still like to see the per capita results below though, at the very least.
Is that true? Do you have that statistic? It would be significant.
I was going off the napkin math of the other commenter, but doing some of my own:
You can extrapolate specific per capita data if you’d like. From the data though, which isn’t disputed unless you’re making stuff up on Faux News with no sources, trans people are drastically underrepresented in mass shooting perpetrators compared to their percentage of the population. Ten times less.
The question remains whether the prevalence of shooters within the trans group is higher or lower vs the prevalence of shooters within the cis group.
“Are trans more or less likely to commit mass shootings” is a question not answered by the given statistics.
What? Yes it does. Whether you do (3/(total population of trans people))/(2826/(total cis pop)) or 0.1%/(total population percentage of trans people) it’s the exact same calculation. It all cancels out.
Edit: if you know the percentage of mass shooters that are trans vs cis, you can extrapolate the per capita data using population percentages.
Second edit, for clarity: You can do this because you’re either cisgender or you’re trans. There aren’t other population groups to account for. For the purposes of the data, trans is an umbrella term that means “not cis.” If trans people committed 0.1% of mass shootings, and represent at most 1% of the population, then you can clearly see that trans people commit mass shootings at a rate of 0.1/1 or 10% that of cis people.
We know how roughly many trans people there are, and we know roughly how many cis people there are. We divide those two to get 1%. We do the same thing with the number of mass shooters, and we get 0.1%. These are in the same units, of trans/cis, and so when we divide them, we get the direct rate of 0.1 or 10%.
Ah, apparently my statistics abilities are a bit rusty, thanks for clearing that up!
No problem at all!
do you expect people who are immune to logic up understand statistics?
Well, the original post seems to think so. It’s important either way to make sure that the stats used actually support the underlying conclusion. Magas want to show correlation between trans and gun violence, so if there is in fact a higher prevalence of shooters among the trans group, which this post does not address.
I’m only looking at the argument itself, not its content, because regardless what the case is, trans people should enjoy the same liberties and respect that any other human being does. If it is shown that trans people are in fact more likely to commit gun violence then the causes for that should be explored, but it wouldn’t mean that therefore trans people should be persecuted. It’s pretty obvious the ease of access to guns, the lack of social safety nets, access to mental health care, massive income inequality, and other factors play a much more significant role.
i think fighting their firehose of bullshit is a waste of time, and that’s why the firehose of bullshit is so effective.
anyone with a fraction of sense won’t fall for that, and it makes people waste time and energy fighting trolls.
I’m cis, so besides solidarity, i have no skin on that specific issue, but the same techniques are used on communities I belong to. like “they are eating the cats, they are eating the dogs …”, it’s useless to waste energy on those claims, and “debating” them gives them attention and from the media point of view, it turns into a two sided debate.
I rather focus on building communities and solidarity to fix this nation without the consent or participation of those bigots.