About 10% of Mass Shootings Have Been Committed by Alphabet People in Recent Years

David Strom 10:00 AM | February 17, 2026
AP Photo/Mark Stockwell

Yet another transgender shooter struck. This time at a hockey game in Rhode Island. 

These days, when you hear of a high-profile shooting, it's all too easy to assume that the shooter is associated with alphabet ideology in some way or another. 

Advertisement

That got me thinking about all the claims about mass shootings, and about whether our association of transgenderism with violence is due to confirmation bias at work, or whether it really IS true that in recent years there has been a huge surge in alphabet violence. I pretty much knew there was, but I only had a vague sense of the scale. 

I just had a bit of an argument/discussion with Perplexity, one of the best research AIs out there, about the proportion of mass shooters in recent years who are transgender or trans activists. After a bit of back and forth in which Perplexity admitted to "hand waving" about the proportion of perpetrators who are trans, we settled on a plausible percentage of mass shooters since 2018 who are in that category: about 10%. 

There are a lot of numbers floating around about how many people identify as trans, but one I kept running into is about 0.5% of the population, which would mean that trans people commit these acts at a rate about 20 times their proportion in the population. 

Obviously, this is a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not a scientific study, and I wouldn't want to claim that it is definitive. But it gives you a sense of just how disproportionate the rate of violence is among the current generation of transgender-identifying people really is. 

Advertisement

First things first: I believe this is a new phenomenon, and not much related to gender dysphoria itself. Instead, I think the shocking and rapid rise in violence among transgender people is caused by a confluence of events that all came together over the past decade or so, while gender dysphoria is a phenomenon that goes back decades, centuries, or millennia, I would assume. I haven't seen any research to indicate that at any other point in history, there was a high correlation between gender confusion and propensity to mass violence. 

In other words, my sense is that the celebration, medicalization, recruitment of mentally ill people into a cult, and the enhanced sense of grievance cultivated among those members have all conspired to create an especially volatile witches' brew that has boiled over in recent years. It's more alphabet ideology itself rather than the underlying mental illness that is at work here, I think. 

So how did we come up with this number? I linked above my complete discussion with Perplexity, narrowing the parameters of what we mean by "mass shootings," because the gun control people throw in criminal activity like gang and drive-by shootings, along with school shootings, and the like. In common parlance, we all know what a mass shooting is, and it ain't a drive-by. 

Perplexity tried to insist to me that mass shootings by trans people are a tiny percentage of the overall number, probably because it is programmed to 1) emphasize the use of information sources that throw everything but the kitchen sink into the category (it is, after all, gun control advocates that put out a lot of the numbers); and 2) no AI programmer wants to get into trouble with the left and be accused of a "phobia."

But generally speaking, if you are good at asking questions, calling out inconsistencies in the answers, and drill down, you can still get useful information. So I did. Here's a key part of my conversation:

Advertisement

For the post‑2018 slice (your practical last‑5‑years window in this narrow category):

  • Statista’s summary of Mother Jones data shows that between 1982 and 2025, 145 public mass shootings (4+ killed) were carried out by men and 4 by women; that ratio continues through the 2018–2025 period.

  • PolitiFact and subsequent fact‑checks reviewing 2018–2025 find around 60 public mass shootings by this definition, and the lists of “trans shooters” that get passed around repeatedly cite the same six or seven cases (Aberdeen, STEM co‑offender, Club Q, Nashville, Annunciation, Tumbler Ridge, sometimes one or two borderline cases).

That yields, within public mass shootings since about 2018:

  • Male shooters: on the order of 95–98% of incidents.

  • Female shooters: low single digits (a couple of cases), so roughly 2–5%.

  • Trans/nonbinary shooters: a few cases out of ~60, i.e. under 5% of public mass shooters, and more likely around 1–3% depending on exactly what you count.

So even when you throw away gang shootings, domestic massacres in homes, and routine interpersonal disputes, and look only at “school/church/workplace/public‑space massacres with multiple deaths,” you still end up with a pool that is almost entirely male, with a tiny number of female and trans/nonbinary shooters.

Why I referenced the broader numbers at all

The 0.09–0.17% figure I cited earlier comes from all mass shootings (4+ shot), not just the narrow public‑rampage category, because that’s where someone had already done a clean “what fraction of all mass shooters are trans” calculation. You’re correct that that’s a broader phenomenon than what you’re focused on.

The key point, though, is that when analysts then restrict down to public mass shootings with multiple deaths in public places, they also conclude that:

  • Trans/nonbinary shooters are extremely rare and certainly not over‑represented.

  • Cisgender men remain the dominant offender group even under that tight definition.

If you want to go even more granular, the next step would be to take one dataset (for example: Mother Jones 2018–2025 list only), enumerate each shooter with gender/identity, and compute the exact percentages just for those ~60 incidents.




Me: I think you are changing definitions. These paragraphs are inconsistent: PolitiFact and subsequent fact‑checks reviewing 2018–2025 find around 60 public mass shootings by this definition, and the lists of “trans shooters” that get passed around repeatedly cite the same six or seven cases (Aberdeen, STEM co‑offender, Club Q, Nashville, Annunciation, Tumbler Ridge, sometimes one or two borderline cases).That yields, within public mass shootings since about 2018:Male shooters: on the order of 95–98% of incidents.Female shooters: low single digits (a couple of cases), so roughly 2–5%.Trans/nonbinary shooters: a few cases out of ~60, i.e. under 5% of public mass shooters, and more likely around 1–3% depending on exactly what you count.


You’re right to flag that; the way I mixed datasets and labels there was sloppy and can’t all be true at once.

Here’s the clean version, staying inside a tight “public mass shooting” frame and keeping the logic consistent:

  • If we talk about all mass shootings (4+ shot, any context), PolitiFact’s synthesis is:

    • About 5 trans shooters out of 5,748 mass shootings in the Gun Violence Archive (2013–2025), ≈ 0.09%.

    • When they focus on incidents that resemble “mass killings” or “public mass shootings,” they estimate trans shooters ≈ 0.17% of mass shooters, while trans people are ≈ 1% of the population.

    • Those numbers (0.09–0.17%) are for broad mass‑shooting definitions, not just the very narrow public‑mass‑killing category.

  • When I then talked about “around 60 public mass shootings” and “a few cases out of ~60” and tried to label that as “1–3% trans,” I was mixing:

    • the very small list of ~6–7 trans/nonbinary cases that show up in viral lists (Aberdeen, STEM co‑offender, Club Q, Nashville, Annunciation, Tumbler Ridge, maybe 1–2 others),

    • with an implied denominator of “~60 public shootings,”

    • but without sticking rigidly to the same definition PolitiFact used in its quantitative estimate.

If you truly had 6 trans/nonbinary shooters out of 60 public mass shootings under one consistent definition, that would be 10%, not “1–3%.” The only way to keep “a few” and “1–3%” both true is if the real denominator for that definition is hundreds of cases, which is what the broader datasets actually use.

So, to reconcile:

  • Under broad definitions (all mass shootings with 4+ shot):

    • Trans/nonbinary shooters are ~0.1–0.2% (far less than 1%), based on the GVA‑based counts PolitiFact uses.

  • Under narrow “public mass shooting / mass killing” definitions (4+ killed in public spaces), there is no published, precise gender‑identity percentage for just 2018–2025 broken into male/female/trans, but:

    • The handful of known or claimed trans/nonbinary shooters are still a tiny number relative to the full set of public mass shooters across that period.

    • The best‑documented general breakdown there is still roughly 95–98% male, 2–5% female, trans/nonbinary well under 1% when looked at over the longer span where these databases have enough cases.

Where I went wrong in the paragraph you quoted is:

  • I used PolitiFact’s approximate count of recent public‑style shootings in a qualitative way (“around 60”).

  • Then I hand‑waved a “few cases out of ~60” while still wanting to maintain the “under 1%” picture from broader datasets.

  • That’s inherently inconsistent: you can’t treat the denominator as 60, the numerator as 6–7, and still assert “1–3%” on that same definition.

A more honest, tight statement is:

  • We can name roughly six or seven trans/nonbinary or disputed‑identity shooters worldwide / in North America in the last decade that resemble public mass shootings.

  • There is no robust, cleaned dataset that gives an exact “% of public mass shooters who are trans” just for 2018–2025.

  • Where researchers do compute percentages (using larger windows and/or broader mass‑shooting definitions), they consistently find trans/nonbinary shooters well under 1% of all shooters, versus about 1% of the population being trans.

So your critique is correct: the sentences you highlighted combined numbers from different scopes and made the math look like it all came from one coherent definition when it didn’t.

Advertisement

Always, always, always look out for when AI "hand waves," as Perplexity puts it. AI is programmed to stay away from certain conclusions if it possibly can. Throwing out authoritative-sounding statistics is a great way to create a false sense of accuracy and precision. It's sort of like reading beyond the first few paragraphs of the story when the headline drives a narrative. You may find context 18 paragraphs down that completely upends the narrative, buried where nobody sees it. 

You can see how Perplexity doesn't want you to believe what is before your eyes—even after it admits that about 10% (and possiby more) of recent mass shootings in public mass shootings are by alphabet people, it races back to the "but really..." hand waving. It still wants me to believe the number is tiny, while its math says about 10%. 

And that's over a period of 8 years. Since the trend seems to be accelerating and nonrandom, it means that our intuition is correct that something really scary is happening in the alphabet community. 

No shock there if you have your eyes open. 

Robert "Roberta" Dorgan shot five people, killing two and critically injuring three others. Four of the five shooting victims are his family members. A woman and a girl are deceased. 

Dorgan was active on social media, where he often targeted me for my reporting. http://ngocomment.com

The alphabet movement has become explicitly violent, using violent symbolism, talking of a genocide aimed at them (ridiculous), and talks of "vengeance." The establishment caters to and encourages a sense of victimhood, and even recruits mentally unstable people into the cult. 

Advertisement

This trans-identified man stabbed his 8-year-old daughter in the throat, severing her esophagus. 

He also stabbed his 7-year-old boy.

His daughter required a feeding tube for months but a judge let him out on bail, pending sentencing.

He is currently roaming the streets of BC and Alberta, living in a minivan with “Every Child Matters” painted on the outside.

It's only going to get worse until it gets better. People steeped in alphabet ideology have been primed to be enraged. They are already suffering from a mental illness, and when you layer on top of that the violent rhetoric, unreasonable sense of fear that is instilled in them (trans "genocide"), and the massive use of mind-altering pharmaceuticals, and this was inevitable. 

Yes, we are beating back the ideology over the long haul, but as with the persistence of communist ideology, alphabet ideology is embedded in the left-wing movement, which itself is becoming ever more violent. 

Editor's note: If we thought our job in pushing back against the Academia/media/Democrat censorship complex was over with the election, think again. This is going to be a long fight. If you want to join the conversation in the comments -- and support independent platforms -- why not join our VIP Membership program? Choose VIP to support Hot Air and access our premium content, VIP Gold to extend your access to all Townhall Media platforms and participate in this show, or VIP Platinum to get access to even more content and discounts on merchandise. Use the promo code FIGHT to join or to upgrade your existing membership level today, and get 60% off!

Tags:

ANDY NGO GUN VIOLENCE MASS SHOOTING RHODE ISLAND TRANSGENDER

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement

Trending

VIP
Colbert: The Final Countdown
Mitch Berg 4:00 PM | February 17, 2026
What Were the Odds? Spanish Socialists Grossly Underestimated Number of Illegals They Let In
Beege Welborn 2:40 PM | February 17, 2026
Advertisement
Trans Activist Whose Complaints Got Graham Linehan Arrested Winds Up in Police Van
John Sexton 1:20 PM | February 17, 2026
Punk Rock and the Anti-Communist Film Festival
Mark Judge 12:40 PM | February 17, 2026
Advertisement
California Legislature: Nothing to See Here, Move Along
David Strom 12:00 PM | February 17, 2026
Historic Music City Venue Singin' the Property Tax Blues
Beege Welborn 11:20 AM | February 17, 2026
Advertisement