How did my medications get pulled into this damnit.
Wouldnāt it then follow that trans women taking testosterone blocking hormones would be less of a risk? Can I still blame guns or is that too big of a stretch?
Obviously we have three times as many menā¦
And, I mean manly men.
You know, with guns.
2 Likes
Yeah, thatās bad. The post read like a GoAer was making the claim.
Itās especially bad if it hasnāt even been established that the shooter was taking supplemental testosterone or other ātransgender drugsā. Even if it had been established (which I donāt think it has) a causal link certainly hasnāt been.
Itās an interesting possibility to consider, but hardly appropriate to definitively declare causation.
Iām sure that the likes of MTG would find other questionable/despicable reasons to deem trans women a āriskā. (
)
It sounds like in MTGās alternative reality, blame falls on there not being more guns in the ārightā hands?
If a trans man taking testosterone is more likely to commit mass murder than a cis-woman, then it seems likely (though not certain) that a trans woman taking testosterone blockers would also be less likely to commit mass murder than a cis-man.
Thatās a big if, and itās also not a guarantee that the two effects are symmetrical.
If testosterone is a causal factor that explains most of the difference between a cis-man and a cis-womanās likelihood of committing mass murder then itās more likely that supplemental testosterone and testosterone blockers move trans men on testosterone and trans women on testosterone blockers to behave more similar to their gender identity than their biological sex at birth.
Thereās a lot we donāt know though.
1 Like
This ignores how many people own a LOT of guns.
IIRC, roughly 45% of American households own at least one firearm. But Iām unsure how many own a firearm other than a hunting rifle, or how many own something more dangerous than a pistol.
āIs holding oneā should work.
1 Like
Heck, Iām going to inherit a few hunting rifles from the 70s soon eventually. I donāt think my FIL has any ammunition though.
A few excerpts from the article. Also a lot of graphics in the article if youāre interested in clicking the link.
Three-in-ten American adults say they currently own a gun, and another 11% say they donāt personally own a gun but live with someone who does. Among those who donāt currently own a gun, about half say they could see themselves owning one in the future.
Roughly three-quarters of Americans who currently own a gun (73%) say they canāt see themselves ever not owning one, and this is the case among majorities of gun owners across demographic groups.
Most gun owners (66%) say they own more than one gun, with about three-in-ten (29%) saying they own five or more guns.
Among gun owners with only one gun, handguns are by far the most common type of gun: 62% say this is the type of gun they own, while 22% own a rifle and 16% own a shotgun.
About seven-in-ten adults (72%) say they have fired a gun at some point in their lives. While this is particularly the case among those who own or have owned a gun (95%), about half of those who have never personally owned a gun say they have fired one (55%).
TN representative being honest. We arenāt going to fix it.
What does this even mean? Iām in that non-gun-owning group that has shot a gun. It was skeet shooting. I donāt think that means anything except that I shot a gun once.
Iāve never owned a gun, nor am I likely to do so. I have fired several guns in the past at gun ranges with friends. I would assume Iām in that 55% thatās fired a gun but never owned one and the 72% who say they have fired a gun whether or not they own one.
Iām surprised that 5% of gun owners say they havenāt fired a gun. My best guess on those are folks who inherited it from some who died.
1 Like
I have two handguns that Iāve never fired.
One is ninety years old, and while I could find ammunition for it, given its age Iād be concerned about a mishap.
The other is at least 150 years old, and if I had good documentation for it, ought to be in a museum due to having been owned (and presumably used) by an infamous relative of mine. Iād have to make ammunition for it if I wanted to fire it, and that doesnāt consider that Iād be doubly concerned about a mishap.
Castration experiments demonstrate that testosterone is necessary for violence, but other research has shown that testosterone is not, on its own, sufficient. In this way, testosterone is less a perpetrator and more an accompliceāone thatās sometimes not too far from the scene of the crime.
Testosterone and transgender theories aside, this is a worthwhile read
Why Italy Has a Gun CultureāBut No Mass Shootings | Readerās Digest (rd.com)
That belongs in the obvious studies thread. We know most men (who have more testosterone) arenāt violent, but most violent acts are committed by men.
What is not obvious is how transgenderism plays into this equation.
It would seem an āobviousā corollary then that someone born a female who increases their testosterone levels to that of a male would be about as prone to violence as someone born a male.
You took great offense to that implication.
I was actually kind of surprised the link wasnāt even stronger between testosterone and violence given men are so much more likely to commit violent crimes.
Yeah, the number of Americans who have shot a gun is surprisingly low to me. Especially among those who own a gun. But I suppose some people might inherit a period gun and never fire it.