We Need Leftist Control, Not Gun Control
Yesterday occurred another mass shooting, this one at a Catholic school in Minnesota.
Of course, leftists immediately waved the bloody shirt of gun control before the bodies–of children–were even cold. What is really needed is leftist control.
The killer–whom I shall not name or even “deadname”–was trans, a biological male “identifying” as a woman. This, sadly, is not a new phenomenon. In fact, a pattern has emerged in recent years.
- Trans individuals are disproportionately the perpetrators in public shootings
- This phenomenon is a relatively recent one, beginning a few years ago
- This period corresponds with the intense politicization of the trans issue by the left, and the associated attacks on anyone who deviates from the trans-left ideology.
So, are individuals who identify as trans inherently more predisposed to such nihilistic violence? I believe so, but the chain of causation is not straightforward.
In particular, point 3 above is crucial in understanding this chain. The left has made those who claim to be trans a protected class. Indeed, it has gone beyond protecting them–it has, to coin a word, pedestalized them. Trans individuals have been idealized, praised for their bravery in the face of bigotry and oppression by normies.
The incentives inherent in this are powerful. Consider a misfit, an anti-social individual who once would have been an outcast, most likely because of some mental illness, including perhaps even paranoid schizophrenia. By declaring him or herself to be trans, this individual, who would otherwise be shunned by most (even family), suddenly gains status. Moreover, this individual’s behavioral, mental, and emotional problems are not just accepted, but valorized and sacralized, and immune from criticism or correction. It’s a narcissist’s or paranoid’s dream.
Meaning that identifying as trans is extremely attractive for a misfit with potentially severe mental problems–problems so severe as to pose a substantially higher risk of extremely violent/murderous behavior. Rather than being shunned or even institutionalized, this individual’s craziness is validated, enabled, and sheltered from criticism and treatment. The elevated status of trans leads to more people declaring themselves such, and this allure is particularly pronounced for very low status individuals marginalized because of their deeply disturbed mental health.
Thus, it’s not so much that trans=crazy per se. It’s that crazy–including murderously crazy–is powerfully incentivized to assume the identity of someone of the opposite sex. That’s the causal chain at work here. Crucially it explains the correspondence in time between the left’s sacralization of trans and the spate of violence committed by those identifying as such.
And I say “assume the identity of” quite deliberately. It is a subjective choice, and arguably a subjunctive one.
What makes it worse is that the left not just validates and enables mental illness but also justifies violence by these individuals. Case in point. The lieutenant governor of Minnesota. (Aside: if as Texas Jack Garner said the vice presidency isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss, what’s the lieutenant governorship of Minnesota worth?)
And it’s not just her. This shirt, and others depicting–IFKUN not–AR15s are widely available:
Again, the left validates and valorizes trans violence. Should we be surprised that some disturbed individuals–dare I say it–are triggered into action by such suggestions?
The left provides the status, so it is not surprising that these trans killers exhibit a cluster of hard core leftist beliefs. The Minnesota killer wanted to kill Trump, Jews, and Christians, and celebrated Palestinians (demonstrating solidarity with another disproportionately nihilistic group). A wildly disproportionate share of violent Antifa types are trans.
And of course the left denies any responsibility. Despite the killer’s quite explicit manifesto, the Minneapolis police said they didn’t have a motive. The execrable mayor of Minneapolis’ main concern was not for those murdered and maimed, but that the atrocity might be used to demonize the trans “community.” (NB. It is not a “community”). Dim bulb Minnesota senator said “there’s no way to put an ideology on this.”
Think of what Klobuchar and the other assorted leftists would be saying had the “madman” been a white supremacist with a manifesto full of hatred towards blacks, or better yet, a MAGA man?
Well, for one thing, they wouldn’t call the killer a “madman”: instead, s/he would be portrayed as a hater steeped in a violent ideology, but a coldly rational one.
But Amy better be careful here! First, she called him a “madman.” Horrors!
She evidently repeated her misgendering in an interview on NPR, causing the station to issue the following sickly hilarious “clarification”:
And just a point of clarification, Senator Klobuchar referenced the shooter as he. Although police have identified a suspect, it’s still unclear at this time what that person’s gender is or how they identify. Transcript provided by NPR,
Second, even overlooking the misgendering, Klobuchar implies that a trans person might be insane. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED, Amy. Check your white cis privilege.
This motivates me to push back the causal chain one step further. Why does the left valorize trans?
That’s easy. It’s baked into their ideology. The trans valorization movement is just the most recent component of the left’s long term strategy to undermine and destabilize traditional morality and social institutions. Undermining and destabilizing sexual morality in particular has proved to be the left’s most powerful social and cultural solvent.
Trans is a particularly powerful solvent because even more so than homosexuality or even pedophilia it attacks the most basic human and social distinction, that between the sexes.
So what we need is not gun control. We need leftist control. It is their ideology that is destructive. Leftists have recruited the crazy to their cause by valorizing and sacralizing mental illness–as long as it crossdresses itself.
Will the perpetrator of this crime be recorded as male or female?
Surely as female, according to the mad left. (A trans woman is a woman.)
So the obvious solution is to ban women from owning firearms?
But the vast majority of people, or anyone actually awake in a secondary school biology class, knows that every cell in your body has either an XX chromosome or an XY chromosome and no amount of drugs or surgery can change that.
Comment by philip — August 28, 2025 @ 1:49 pm
And that XX or XY distinction was determined at the moment of conception.
Comment by philip — August 28, 2025 @ 1:50 pm
The combination of lacking protective custody for madmen and having guns widely available is going to allow cases like these to occur indefinitely. Since the guns are constitutionally protected (to which I have no objection) it follows that y’all ought to consider compulsory protective custody for madmen who have committed violent behaviour, whether towards others or towards themselves.
But who would trust The State to effect such policies honestly and competently?
Comment by dearieme — August 28, 2025 @ 2:51 pm
Trans individuals are disproportionately the perpetrators in public shootings – any source to back up this extraordinary claim?
Comment by [email protected] — August 30, 2025 @ 7:55 pm
Great post! This essay is an excellent critique of the last sentence in this piece written 10 years ago, “Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme”
“Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.”
Comment by Brien — August 31, 2025 @ 7:57 am
https://crimeresearch.org/2025/01/updated-information-on-mass-public-shootings-from-1998-to-2024/
“Trans individuals are well over-represented in terms of attacks. There are three estimates of the percentage of adults who are trans (CDC’s Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) finds 0.5% between 2017 to 2020, Gallup shows 0.7% in 2021, and the Census puts it at 1% in 2023). These numbers are clearly increasing over time, so an average for 2018 to 2023 years would probably overestimate the rate, but the average is 0.73%.”
“Trans share of mass public shootings over the 2018 to 2024 period is 6.8 times their share of the population.”
Comment by Pat Frank — August 31, 2025 @ 6:58 pm
The Prof does a good job in this post of proposing a hypothesis, supporting it qualitatively, and I see just above that Pat Frank can support it quantitively. I’m totally with you that far: The extent of US Society’s unwillingness to question certain elements of the Trans movement is problematic. But then the conclusion makes a massive leap: “So what we need is not gun control. We need leftist control.”
Given that there are obviously mass-murdering lunatics on both the right and left, I assume we can look forward to The Prof and regular commenters on this blog supporting the same “control” being exercised over risky right-wing individuals?
Or maybe the US could do what every other country with lots of guns does, and provide effective mental healthcare to those who need it, for the good of society. Just an idea…
Comment by HibernoFrog — September 1, 2025 @ 4:23 am
There’s growing suspicion that over-use of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs; antidepressants) may play into the mind-set of a mass shooter.
Mass shootings in the U.S. is a relatively recent phenomenon.
20% of the 167 mass shootings between 1966 & 2019 occurred over 2014-2019 and more than half occurred after 2000, of which 33% occurred after 2010.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings
The cause is not gun possession, or even the ease of possession (it’s harder now). There’s some mental affliction causing people to insanely suppose that shooting a bunch of people is a good idea.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 1, 2025 @ 12:45 pm
@Hibernofrog @patfrank not so quick. The link that Pat doesn’t really doesn’t inspire confidence… and note that calculating exact percentages when it comes to mass shooting statistics in the U.S. varies by way of counting, as organizations define mass shootings in different ways. Pat not sure how your article got to that conclusion (6.8 times) but as far as I can tell, it’s wrong.
here are some more serious sources –
Reuters:
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.
Further, the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC), which studies all forms of targeted violence including mass casualty attacks, published a report with data from 2016 to 2020 (here). The report examined 173 attacks in the U.S. that “that resulted in harm to three or more individuals in public locations,” Justine Whelan, press secretary for the U.S. Secret Service, told Reuters via email, and “three attackers (2%) were transgender, assigned female at birth, but were known to identify as male at the time of their attacks.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/majority-of-us-mass-shooters-are-cis-men-not-transgender-or-non-binary-people-idUSL1N363273/
Northwestern U – Using the Gun Violence Archive, and a definition for mass shooting meaning “at least four gun injuries,” there have been 3,561 mass shootings since the beginning of 2016. Laura Dugan, a professor of human security and sociology at Ohio State University, said the four widely cited examples out of the 3,561 shootings translates to 0.11% being perpetrated by someone who is not cisgender — a very low number relative to the number of mass shootings total.
https://cssh.northeastern.edu/policyschool/fact-focus-no-incredible-rise-in-transgender-shooters/
Comment by [email protected] — September 1, 2025 @ 5:54 pm
The Gun Violence Archive includes gang violence among its count of mass shootings. However, the issue here is ideologically driven or psycho-pathological shootings.
The Gun Violence Archive method of including gang violence badly distorts the rate of shootings.
You can’t tell particularly far, libte.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 1, 2025 @ 7:45 pm
@Pat: Many countries in Europe have lots of guns and high levels of anti-depressant consumption. Not saying that’s proof there’s no link, but no way it’s going to be that simple, and even if it were, that’s all the more argument for a comprehensive mental health system to catch this kind of thing before it goes too far.
Comment by HibernoFrog — September 2, 2025 @ 1:32 am
Here you go Pat, excluding gang violence. Inform yourself for once, doofus –
Based on data from The Violence Project (TVP), a leading nonprofit research center that maintains a comprehensive database of public mass shootings in the United States dating back to 1966, the number of mass shootings carried out by transgender perpetrators from September 2, 2020, to September 2, 2025, is 2.
Key Context and Explanation TVP’s Definition of “Mass Shooting”: TVP uses a strict, FBI-aligned criterion: an incident where 4 or more people (excluding the perpetrator) are killed (fatalities only, not including injuries) with firearms in a public place, with no apparent connection to gang, drug, or other criminal activity (e.g., robbery or domestic violence). This excludes the vast majority of gun violence incidents, focusing on rare, high-fatality public attacks. As of 2024, TVP’s database included 195 such incidents committed by 200 perpetrators since 1966. Their methodology is narrower than broader trackers like the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which includes injuries and gang-related events, resulting in far fewer total incidents (~20–25 per year vs. ~600+).
Total Mass Shootings in the Period: Approximately 35–40 (based on TVP’s key findings and updates through 2025; e.g., ~6 in 2020, ~8 in 2021, ~7 in 2022, ~6 in 2023, ~5 in 2024, and ~3 through September 2025). Over 96% of all TVP-tracked perpetrators since 1966 were cisgender males (non-transgender men). Transgender individuals represent ~0.6–1% of the U.S. population (per Williams Institute estimates) but account for less than 1% of TVP’s mass shooters overall. Experts, including TVP researchers, emphasize no evidence of a “trend” or overrepresentation; such claims often rely on misinformation or broader definitions that include unverified or non-public incidents.
Why This Data?: TVP’s exclusion of gang/criminal-linked violence provides a clearer focus on “indiscriminate” public attacks. Their database is publicly accessible and draws from verified open sources (e.g., police reports, court records). No causal link exists between gender identity and these acts; common factors include personal crises, trauma, mental health issues, and access to firearms (per TVP’s analyses).
Comment by [email protected] — September 2, 2025 @ 12:14 pm
Wordfence has suddenly blocked my comments with a 403 error. This comment is a test whether the problem is content or IP.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 3, 2025 @ 10:38 am
Turns out the Wordfence problem is content rather than IP.
So, I’ll just post a particularly hard result.
Using your TVP data, libte: 2 transgender shooters since 2020, and 6+8+7+6+5+3 = 36 mass shootings. Transgender rate = 2/36 = 0.0555 => 5.6%.
By your own numbers, the fraction of recent shooters who were transgender is 5.55 to 9.26 times larger than their fraction of the population.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 3, 2025 @ 10:43 am
So you took two data points out of 36 and decided that proves a sweeping trend? Congrats, you’ve just reinvented “small-sample bias.” With numbers that tiny, one case up or down flips your “analysis” by several hundred percent. If you zoom out to the full Violence Project dataset (1966–2025), we’re talking 2 transgender perpetrators out of ~200 total, or about 1%. That lines up almost exactly with their share of the U.S. population. In other words, your math isn’t wrong, but your interpretation is about as solid as calling a coin “biased” after flipping head twice.
Comment by [email protected] — September 4, 2025 @ 12:19 pm
There was no statistically significant population of surgically altered hormonally treated transgender people in 1966. The population of such people prior to 2000 remained vanishingly small.
For example, linear extrapolation of the number of people identifying as transgender (2007-2015) goes to zero at year 2000. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5227946/
That is, from a population standpoint, there was no statistically valid number of transgender people before year 2000.
Therefore: calculating a fraction of transgender shooters today, versus the total number of shooters starting at 1966 gives a meaningless result. There was no significant transgender populational cohort in 1966. Or 1976. Or 1986. or 1996.
Figure it out, libte. One can’t take ratios with a numerator of zero.
Starting at year 2000 for both shooters and transgender population is the correct way to estimate a meaningful fractional rate. And that rate is 5.6%.
You merely proved you’ve no idea how to think correctly about the problem.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 4, 2025 @ 7:19 pm
First, your “no statistically valid number of transgender people before 2000” claim is laughable. Trans people didn’t spontaneously appear in 2000 like Pokémon — they’ve always existed, documented in medical journals, memoirs, and history. What changed was visibility and measurement. By your logic, gay people didn’t exist until Gallup started asking about them. That’s not analysis — that’s you confusing survey design with reality.
Second, your “linear extrapolation to zero” is the kind of junk math that gets laughed out of an undergrad stats class. Social identity data doesn’t follow straight lines; it reflects stigma, reporting, and methodology. Treating survey visibility like a biological population curve isn’t clever, it’s statistical malpractice.
Third, your dramatic “you can’t take ratios with a numerator of zero” is just wrong. A ratio with zero in the numerator equals zero — which is exactly what the share of trans shooters was for decades. That doesn’t prove the population didn’t exist; it proves there were no perpetrators. Congratulations, you just disproved your own claim of “overrepresentation.”
Fourth, your shiny “5.6% rate” is statistical faceplanting. Two cases out of a few dozen is meaningless — with such a tiny denominator, one extra case swings the number by multiple percentage points. That’s not a trend, that’s small-sample noise. Calling that evidence is the kind of thing that gets a red X on a stats exam.
So no, you didn’t “figure it out.” You just paraded your inability to understand ratios, extrapolation, and sampling error while smugly lecturing others about math. Thanks for the free demonstration.
Comment by [email protected] — September 5, 2025 @ 8:12 am
Evidently you don’t know the meaning or importance of “statistically valid.”
The population of transgender people prior to year 2000 was insignificant. See Figure 1 for Sweden, which has published time-series demographics: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4427508
Hand-waving arguments about phantom populations don’t cut it. “Social identity data” don’t exist prior to year ~2000. A look at the Internet Archive shows no mentions of transgender prior to 1996:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/transgender
Linear extrapolation of trends is standard everywhere, except in libte-land.
Figure 3 of the paper which provided the data was a linear extrapolation. Here’s the link again:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5227946/
Feel free to write the authors and correct their use of “junk math.”
A dividend of “zero” is not a ratio. Maybe except in libte-land, where everything is cork-screw and invisible pink unicorns dance in the gloaming.
Finally the data say 2/36 is the fractional population since 2000, the first year with a statistically valid estimate of the transgender population. Starting count of mass shooters at 1966 is a dishonest padding to reduce the ratio.
You’re right that the ratio is sensitive to small numbers. But those are the data. The numbers stem from direct reports. You don’t like them. Too bad.
5.6% is 5.6-9.2 times larger than the transgender fraction of the population since 2000. You don’t like that, either. Too bad.
Note that even 1/36 is much larger than the transgender fraction since 2000.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 5, 2025 @ 1:51 pm
Ah, I get it now — math in “libte-land” works differently. First it’s “since 2020, 5.6%”, now it’s “since 2000, 5.6%” — goalposts moved, denominator doubled, and somehow the percentage miraculously stayed the same. Incredible! In the real world, that’s called basic arithmetic, but apparently that’s optional in PF’s head.
Let’s review TVP for those not living in a fantasy:
Since 2020: ~35–40 shooters → 2 trans = 5.6%
Since 2000: ~70–80 shooters → 2 trans ≈ 2.5%
Since 1966: ~190+ shooters → 2 trans ≈ 1%
So your “5.6%” only exists if you ignore half the data. That’s not insight; that’s small-sample cherry-picking and a spectacular failure to understand statistics. One or two cases in a tiny dataset swinging percentages by 3–4 points? That’s literally why statisticians roll their eyes at claims like yours.
But please, continue lecturing about ratios and “statistically valid populations.” It’s fascinating to watch someone invent math as they go.
Comment by [email protected] — September 5, 2025 @ 2:14 pm
https://crimeresearch.org/2025/01/updated-information-on-mass-public-shootings-from-1998-to-2024/
Percent transgender shooters, 2019-2024: 5%
Ratio of transgender shooters relative to 0.6-1% population size: 5-8.3 times.
Quoting the site: “Trans individuals are well over-represented in terms of attacks. There are three estimates of the percentage of adults who are trans (CDC’s Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) finds 0.5% between 2017 to 2020, Gallup shows 0.7% in 2021, and the Census puts it at 1% in 2023). These numbers are clearly increasing over time, so an average for 2018 to 2023 years would probably overestimate the rate, but the average is 0.73%. Trans share of mass public shootings over the 2018 to 2024 period is 6.8 times their share of the population.”
You’re right, I typed 2000 in relating the fractions, rather than 2020. Ever so profound a typo.
From the Violence Prevention Organization
https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database/
__________________Trans population_______Trans Mass Shooters
2019-2024: 36___________~1%______________2 => 5.5% = 5.5x
2000-2018: 85___________~0.5%____________1 => 1.2% = 2.4x
1966-1999: 75___________ nil_____________N/A
An estimate from 1966 is meaningless. Your insistence on starting from 1966 is dishonest.
Further, from https://www.newsweek.com/robin-westman-latest-transgender-mass-shooter-spark-national-debate-2120683
Robin Westman, who recently shot up the Annunciation Catholic Church, was trans. The 2023 shooter of a Christian school in Nashville was trans, as was the 2019 shooter at a Denver charter school and the 2018 shooter in Aberdeen, Maryland.
So, that’s four since 2018, not 2. Mass shootings, 2018-2024 = 46. 4/46 = 8.7% were transgender
Also, the updated number of transgender shooters for 2019-2024 is now 3. 3/36 = 8.3% were transgender => 8.3x
You’ve got no case except dismissive sneers, libte.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 5, 2025 @ 6:51 pm
Congratulations, you’ve mastered the art of dividing small integers. Truly, the world has been waiting for someone to bravely announce that 4 ÷ 36 = 8.7%. Unfortunately, interpreting statistics isn’t just about flexing fourth-grade arithmetic.
Here’s what you missed:
When your “analysis” hinges on three or four people out of dozens, you’re not uncovering a trend, you’re just amplifying noise. That’s called sampling error — one extra or one fewer case completely rewrites your dramatic percentage.
Then you play the denominator trick: comparing the entire adult population’s 0.5–1% to a group of shooters whose median age is late teens/early 20s, where the trans prevalence is several times higher. Suddenly, your “8x over-representation” shrinks into irrelevance.
And let’s not forget the definitional fuzziness — even among your cherry-picked list, there’s debate over who actually identified as trans versus who had the label slapped on them by others. If you can’t define the numerator consistently, the ratio is a house of cards.
So yes, you can divide small numbers. But interpreting the result? You’ve turned routine sampling noise into a conspiracy theory. That’s not statistics — that’s just arithmetic cosplay with a tragic lack of context.
Comment by [email protected] — September 6, 2025 @ 5:56 am
“you’re just amplifying noise.”
Wrong. They’re direct integer counts.
“one extra or one fewer case completely rewrites your dramatic percentage.”
Wrong. Integer counts can alter the ratio, as they may do. There’s no telling the future outcomes.
“late teens/early 20s, where the trans prevalence is several times higher. ”
Irrelevant. The topic is populational ratios, not age-restricted cohort ratios. You’re shifting ground – a desperation ploy.
You raise a worthy issue, though. One may note the explosion after year 2000 of the number of young people identifying as trans. After decades of no trend, this rapid emergence has the hallmark of a sudden-onset disease. Not of a pre-present organic trait.
“your cherry-picked list,”
Projection. You introduced The Violence Project and its list. They’re your cherries.
“there’s debate over who actually identified as trans”
Wrong. There’s no valid debate about the shooters’ self-image. There’s attempted self-exculpation by progressives. That’s not debate, but rather is a dishonest polemic.
“routine sampling noise”
Hand-waving excuse-mongering. Extrinsic factors affect incidence. The divergences are not noise, but rather the variable outcome of social dynamics. Time-series trends can change slope with increasing data. However, that does not obviate the validity of data-manifested time-point ratios.
“arithmetic cosplay with a tragic lack of context.”
Wrong again. The arithmetic is fine. The tragedy is a widespread pathological self-delusion that can produce an impulse to murder.
You brought up the 2020-2025 time range. You brought up the number of trans shooters. You attempted to fake a small ratio by counting from 1966.
You framed the debate. You introduced the numbers. You pushed the fraudulent ratio. You got caught. You lost the debate. And you now dodge about to obscure the clear verdict of failure.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 6, 2025 @ 10:12 am
Ah yes, the classic move: when your shaky math gets called out, just shout “Wrong!” after every sentence and hope no one notices you’ve added exactly zero evidence.
Let’s unpack your greatest hits:
“They’re direct integer counts.”
Yes, congratulations again on mastering whole numbers. But when the entire point is whether those integers mean anything statistically, simply repeating “they’re integers!” is like bragging that your ruler has centimeters on it. Measurement ≠ interpretation.
“Irrelevant. The topic is populational ratios, not age-restricted cohorts.”
Nope. If your numerator (shooters) overwhelmingly comes from a narrow age band, your denominator has to match. That’s Statistics 101. Pretending otherwise is like saying teen pregnancy rates should be measured against all women. But sure, keep pretending context is a “desperation ploy.”
“Explosion after 2000 … sudden-onset disease.”
Ah, the fallback to pseudoscience. Every marginalized group in history has been accused of being a “disease” the moment they became visible — from gay people to left-handed kids. Spoiler: social acceptance ≠ viral outbreak.
“No valid debate about self-image.”
So you’ve personally audited every shooter’s identity and cross-checked it against DSM criteria? Or are you just defaulting to “if a tabloid headline says it, it must be true”?
“Time-series trends can change slope …”
Sure, but when you’re working with a handful of cases, what you’re calling a “trend” is just statistical static. If you flip a coin three times and get two heads, you don’t declare a 66% head rate and publish a crisis report. Well — you might.
“You lost the debate.”
Always a strong closer: declare victory loudly and repeatedly, like a WWE wrestler holding up the belt after losing the match.
So no, pointing out that your ratios collapse under the slightest scrutiny isn’t “hand-waving.” It’s just not letting you dress up noisy outliers as cosmic truth. You’ve got arithmetic, sure. But without statistical literacy, you’re basically just yelling numbers into the void and calling it analysis.
Comment by [email protected] — September 6, 2025 @ 11:32 am
“shout “Wrong!” … zero evidence.”
Dishonest. Every response opening with “Wrong” specified its justification. Which you ever so surprisingly failed to note.
“is like bragging”
Wrong. I specified they are integer counts. Perhaps you didn’t realize that each count represents a single physical person and a single physical event.
“from a narrow age band, your denominator has to match.”
Wrong again. The demographic was transgender population, not transgender youth between ages, e.g., 15-25.
You: “the number of mass shootings carried out by _transgender_ perpetrators from September 2, 2020, to September 2, 2025, is 2.(my _emphasis_)” Not, ‘youthful transgender perpetrators’
You specified the total demographic. Live with it. You’re shifting your ground again to avoid the failure of your case.
“teen pregnancy rates”
False analogy. You didn’t specify teen transgender. More evidence of shifting your ground.
“Every marginalized group in history has been accused of being a “disease””
Every so-called marginalized group was in existence prior to their marginalization. Prior existence excludes the explosive emergence of a large cohort of transgender children.
The few transgender adults of the late 20th century weren’t “marginalized.” No one cared. They could go on and live ordinary lives.
Today’s burgeoning population isn’t marginalized either. They’re the darlings of progressives, shouting on the streets, with flags, murals, media attention, and parti-colored crosswalks everywhere. A narcissists fever-dream.
You may want to familiarize yourself with social contagion:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00332925.2017.1350804
“Of particular concern to the author is the number of teens and tweens suddenly coming out as transgender without a prior history of discomfort with their sex. Rapid-onset gender dysphoria” is a new presentation of a condition that has not been well studied.”
You’re doing no one a favor defending transgender dysphoria as valid and healthy. It’s a medically disastrous tulip-mania.
“you’ve personally audited”
Argument from self-invalidation. Questioning the validity of the data extends equally to your data.
You opened with data from The Violence Project. Have you audited their data? Very unlikely. If you deny one data set, you deny them all, including your own.
In other words, in making your argument questioning the data, you’ve invalidated your own argument. Well done.
“If you flip a coin three times ”
False analogy. Transgender shooting events are not known to follow Gaussian statistics. Your analogy assumes a normal distribution. Ignorant, self-serving, and unjustified.
“Always a strong closer: declare victory”
Your original thesis has failed. You’ve shifted ground repeatedly. Prime evidence of a loss. Concluding from evidence is not an empty declaration.
“noisy outliers”
Amusing. You’re now reduced to calling the data itself, “noisy outliers.” The data are yours, libte. You opened with data from The Violence Project. They didn’t support your case. Dismissing your own data in response to an embarrassment is hardly a vindication. More like a latterly cloud of dust raised by an angry loser.
“calling it analysis.”
Analysis of the data from your source. Analysis that drained your little pond of progressive pearl-clutching waters. Enjoy your mud bath.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 6, 2025 @ 1:18 pm
excellent — the “I said integers, therefore I win” defense. Let’s go one more round, since you seem determined to confuse counting heads with understanding what the numbers mean.
“Each count represents a single physical person and event.”
Yes, and each jellybean in a jar is also a “single physical object.” But if you draw three red ones from a jar of 500, declaring a “red epidemic” would still get you laughed out of Statistics 101. Raw counts aren’t wrong — they’re just meaningless without context.
“You didn’t say youth transgender so the denominator is total trans population.”
This is like insisting the rate of high-school football concussions should be measured against all living humans because no one specified “youth athletes.” When your numerator comes from a narrow slice (young shooters), your denominator has to match. You can shout “shifting ground!” all you like, but it’s really just you refusing to align apples with apples.
“The late-20th century trans population wasn’t marginalized.”
Cute rewrite of history. Being invisible under stigma ≠ being un-marginalized. By that logic, gay men in the 1950s “weren’t marginalized” because they kept quiet and blended in. That’s not analysis, that’s nostalgia cosplay.
“Rapid-onset dysphoria … tulip mania … narcissists.”
So we’ve migrated from pretending to do math to copy-pasting culture-war buzzwords. If you want to claim causation between more visible identities and more shooters, you need something sturdier than “but sidewalks are rainbow now.” Otherwise, it’s just vibes in search of a data set.
“You used Violence Project data, so if you question data you invalidate yourself.”
Another rookie move. Pointing out that all datasets have limitations doesn’t mean they’re useless — it means you interpret cautiously. I didn’t invalidate myself; I just refused to treat your cherry-pick as divine revelation. Big difference.
“Coin flips aren’t Gaussian … false analogy.”
Oh, you sweet summer child. The point of the coin example wasn’t that mass shootings are “normally distributed.” It was that small samples create noisy ratios. That’s not Gaussian; that’s just common sense. If you can’t follow the analogy, maybe sit out the metaphors.
“Your pond is drained, enjoy your mud bath.”
Ah yes, the WWE closer again — louder insults as substitute for math. At this point you’re not debating; you’re cosplaying as a comment-section Ric Flair.
So where do we go from here? You can keep yelling “Wrong!” like a broken buzzer on Family Feud, or you can admit the obvious: with sample sizes this small, the only thing you’ve proved is your ability to confuse arithmetic with analysis.
Comment by [email protected] — September 6, 2025 @ 2:37 pm
also . “You’re doing no one a favor defending transgender dysphoria as valid and healthy. ” I have never done or said such a thing, your feverish mind is playing tricks on you. Stop making things up you silly goose.
Comment by [email protected] — September 6, 2025 @ 2:43 pm
Given your final “with sample sizes this small,” by your own escapist gyrations, you should never have raised the issue of numbers in the first place.
But you did raise the issue of numbers. The fault lays with you.
“This is like insisting… ”
Wrong. It’s analysis consistent with the context *you* initiated. You, libte. You’re at odds with yourself again.
To correct your misguided analogy, it’s like comparing the rate of high-school football concussions with the incidence of concussion in the total population. Comparison with populational incidence is the only way to determine if the rate of football concussion is normal or pathologically high.
“your denominator has to match.”
You: ‘Let’s review TVP for those not living in a fantasy:
“Since 2020: ~35–40 shooters → 2 trans = 5.6%
“Since 2000: ~70–80 shooters → 2 trans ≈ 2.5%
“Since 1966: ~190+ shooters → 2 trans ≈ 1%”
Your earlier denominators didn’t match the youth cohort, did they. You shifted ground.
“The point of the coin example … was that small samples create noisy ratios.”
They can create variable ratios. Such ratios are not “noisy” because they do not originate from a common source. You’re confused about the meaning of the data.
“Being invisible under stigma… ”
They were disregarded under no one cared.
Gay men were the only group once stigmatized. Progressives have smeared that history onto other alt-sex people to manufacture an oppressed group about which they can leverage turmoil.
““Rapid-onset dysphoria…”
You didn’t consult the linked reference, did you.
“it means you interpret cautiously.”
See your little chart above where, by your shape-shifting lights, you interpreted incautiously.
You’re all over the map, libte — contradicting yourself, dismissing your own data, moving goals, tendentiously misconceiving meaning, and generally creating a mess.
“So where do we go from here?”
You can go anywhere you like, all by yourself.
Your increasingly confused shilly-shallying about and epicyclic frame-wandering goes nowhere. This conversation is likely no more than entertainment for you; to be endlessly continued for the sake of your diversion.
You’re welcome now to foam on is glorious isolation.
Comment by Pat Frank — September 6, 2025 @ 4:02 pm
Ah, the “I’ve cornered you with your own math” routine — except you’ve managed to misread both the math and the point. Impressive two-for-one.
You keep chanting “denominator!” like it’s a magic spell that makes context disappear. No, my dude, comparing football concussions to the entire population is not how epidemiology works, it’s how bad analogies are born. You don’t measure lightning strikes against all mammals just because “no one said humans.” Matching cohorts to cohorts isn’t “shifting ground,” it’s literally step one in statistics.
And this gem: “they were disregarded because no one cared.” Stunning. That’s not analysis, that’s a Hallmark card for historical erasure. By your logic, segregation wasn’t marginalization, it was just “meh, nobody cared.” Thank you for rewriting decades of lived experience into a shrug. Bold move.
Meanwhile, your attempt to “correct” me on noisy ratios is chef’s kiss. Whether you call it noise, variance, or “my personal confusion about sources,” the problem is the same: tiny samples swing wildly, which is why professionals don’t hang grand theories on three datapoints and a hunch. You think you’re enlightening me, but honestly, you sound like a flatulent monk locked in a cloister, mistaking the echo of his own farts for divine revelation.
And then we get the culture-war bingo card: “rapid onset,” “progressives smearing history,” “alt-sex people.” At this point you’re less statistician, more late-night AM radio host doing his greatest-hits set.
So let’s be clear: I raised numbers to point out how weak your numbers are. That’s called exposing a bad argument, not “owning myself.” You can keep shouting “contradiction!” like a carnival barker who’s lost his script, but it doesn’t change the fact that your arithmetic is easy and your reasoning is lazy.
But hey, if you’d rather close with another Ric Flair chest-thump about “glorious isolation,” be my guest. Just don’t pretend it’s math.
Comment by [email protected] — September 6, 2025 @ 4:44 pm