• bluesheep@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      131·
      1 month ago

      “No way to prevent this, says only country in the world where this regularly happens” - The Onion

    • Digit@lemmy.wtfEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      Way to much missing data to make strong inferences from.

      … Except the one obvious stand-out strong inference. ;)

        • Digit@lemmy.wtfEnglish
          2·
          1 month ago

          The pic is linked btw.

          Yes. I know. I was responding to it. That does not change things, only corroborates what I’m pointing out.

          See all the grey in the map?

          See the list in the link has only 22 countries?

          That’s effectively only around 10% of all countries in the world.

          How’s that for sigma signal or p-value…

          [… okay, I got curious, and wrestled an LLM to put some numbers on it rather than just saying it was insufficient to put numbers on it:

          Mean
9.6
3.2 to 16.0
Standard Deviation
15.3
11.8 to 21.6
Sigma Score
0.0087
-0.09 to 0.18
P-value (vs. USL=10)
> 0.05
Not significant

          ]

          Yep, could be some giant monsters or a preponderance of angels hiding in the missing data.

    • Remy Rose@piefed.socialEnglish
      24·
      1 month ago

      Very roughly, based on quickly googled U.S. populations and the numbers in this comic:

      • 0.0000013043478 trans mass shootings per capita
      • 0.0000083182619 cis mass shootings per capita

      So, still not looking great for cis people? If my math is right?

      • hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        23·
        1 month ago

        To make it easier to read, it would mean that cis people conduct mass shootings at a rate 6.378 times greater than trans people.

      • Klear@quokk.auEnglish
        6·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, but keep in mind that the USA has more people per capita than the rest of the world.

      • Digit@lemmy.wtfEnglish
        1·
        1 month ago

        [this answer and others [wasnt sure which to add this response to]] kinda reminds me of the migrant bias thing, where fuelled fears flip the statistic, making migrants seem more problematic, when in reality, they’re even more devoted to the country and not wanting to be a problem.

        still would be wise not to overcompensate the other way. (like the OP image can be interpreted as doing).

        the truth well out. :)

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      1 month ago

      So general high estimate is trans people may make up up to 1% of the population. I’m going to estimate as unfriendly to us to be thorough.

      So with a total of 2829 shootings we’d expect 28.29 of them to be by trans people and 2800.71 of them to be by cis people.

      Now the more realistic answer is .3% of the population are trans and each of those 3 trans shooters has a huge asterisk next to the claims that they’re trans.

      • Digit@lemmy.wtfEnglish
        2·
        1 month ago

        So general high estimate is trans people may make up up to 1% of the population. I’m going to estimate as unfriendly to us to be thorough.

        :3 wouldnt assuming a lower % of the population as trans be estimating “as unfriendly” more than accepting a higher estimate? because that’d increase the % of mass shooters in the trans population. like if it’s an order fewer, than that’s already tipped the scale the other way. if its a third, then we’re well within the margin of error, effectively making it balanced out, each equivalent, easily arguably making this an utter irrelevant criteria, a non-factor.

        gotta wonder about the socio-psychological duress, and the priming by false flagging agencies needing patsies, more, than whatever aspects of gender identity in psychology or physiology.

        no time for pitchforks vs torches. the emperor’s naked.

      • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        81·
        1 month ago

        It’s always been so interesting to me that the identities are ‘balanced.’ If being trans was due to any of the many causes the anti-trans movement proposes (peer pressure, mental illness, environmental contamination, etc) you would expect one population out of three, just by chance, to outnumber the others. But to me the fact it’s proportional implies that it’s just an organically occurring part of the human experience.

        • Zorcron@piefed.zipEnglish
          5·
          1 month ago

          Your trans type is like your Pokemon type. Fire, grass, water. So any type is weak to one and strong to another. If any type starts to prevail, the type that’s strong against it will be more successful, therefore keeping the populations in balance. Simple Pokebiology.

  • tomiant@piefed.socialEnglish
    71·
    1 month ago

    A more meaningful metric would be % of trans/non trans in each reapective group committing mass shootings.

    • erin@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      4·
      1 month ago

      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.

        • erin@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • tomiant@piefed.socialEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • erin@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              2·
              1 month ago

              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%.

      • tomiant@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          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.