Anonymous #2 4d

I don’t see the connection between a mentally ill person shooting his family at a hockey rink and trans individuals.

10

Anonymous OP 4d

The guy that did it was tr*ns

-4

Anonymous #2 4d

And?

5

Anonymous #3 4d

OP asked for the connection. There’s no and

-3

Anonymous #2 4d

If I wanted to draw a connection between mass shootings and a specific demographic, I’d have a lot easier time if I was referring to white, cis, straight young men with conservative political views. Trans people have nothing to do with it. Shooter happened to be trans, so what?

11

Anonymous #3 4d

I suggest you research the meaning of pet capita. Because Per capita they’re more likely to do stuff like that. White people are more in the aggregate because we represent a larger portion of population.

-2

Anonymous #3 4d

Which is word? You have 100,000 apples and 5 of them are bad vs you have 5 apples and 4 of them are bad.

-2

Anonymous #2 4d

Worst*

-2

Anonymous #2 4d

Trans people are about 1% of the population, which is significantly higher than the proportion of mass shootings done by trans people, actually. (0.09% between 2013 and 2025). So the data suggests the opposite.

6

Anonymous #1 4d

It’s definitely not the largest operation, but it certainly is the most high profile

1

Anonymous #2 4d

That would be about 10 times less likely. They ARE 4 times as likely to be the victim of violent crimes, however!

6

Anonymous #3 4d

The data doesn’t suggest the opposite. I’ve studied the data. Also that awful if they are 4 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime. However using your same logic as before white people experienced violent crimes 100x more than trans people

-1

Anonymous #2 4d

I said 4 times as likely, not 4 times as often.

4

Anonymous #2 4d

A trans person doing something objectively horrible does not mean the entire community should be demonized. And you can say trans you dont have to censor it. It’s not a bad word

6

Anonymous #2 4d

And I’d be very surprised if you did, in fact, study the data considering it doesn’t say what you’re saying it does. I’m using data from the GVA (Gun Violence Archive), where does yours come from and what does it say? In this case, it tracks 5748 shootings from Jan 1 2013-Sept 15 2025 that involved a minimum of four victims, which is how they define a mass shooting.

6

Anonymous #5 4d

I get put on timeout whenever I use the t word lol

-1

Anonymous #2 4d

Somehow, I don’t think it’s about using the word, and is rather about what you say around the word.

4

Anonymous #2 3d

Dude you dont know how statistics work clearly holy shit Youre using youre shitty understanding of basic statistical analysis to propagate your hateful worldview, and you barely are able to string along a sentence to do so

1

Anonymous #2 3d

Besides the fact that the numbers are so incredibly skewed toward the fact that white, cis, conservative men are more likely to commit mass shootings(or violent crimes in general such as domestic violence), look at the context of both groups If youre “statistical analysis” was correct (its not, you barely know how to use proper grammar, much less understand what is considered the most easily misunderstood math subject) perhaps the reason why would have to do with how we as a society 1/2

1

Anonymous OP 3d

Trans people and completely disregard their rights, as you are so willing to do. Meanwhile, cis white men are ACTUALLY more likely to commit violence bc of rhetoric like yours, saying it’s ok because the people you attack are lesser, mentally ill, etc

1