> you don’t like the data because it doesn’t fit your narrative
In counter argument, you don’t like the laws of logic and probability because they don’t fit your narrative.
Edit: Furthermore, do we not agree, in the United States, under the rule of law, that it is a failure of civil responsibility, punishable by death in some jurisdictions, to murder even 1 person, let alone 44?
How is your argument anything other than we must do everything within our rights and capacity, as a country, to prevent each and every failure of civic responsibility?
> How is your argument anything other than we must do everything within our rights and capacity, as a country, to prevent each and every failure of civic responsibility?
Apart from the insults (accusing me of not liking logic, etc.), this is a straw-man and, just to be clear, is absolutely not what I'm arguing.
I believe this paper ought to suffice as the entry point for the non-scientific community to pursue the academic research that supports my original assertion:
Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data,
Aggression and Violent Behavior,
Volume 14, Issue 3,
2009,
Pages 170-179
That paper (full text in [1]) does not support your argument at all. In fact, murder rates are only mentioned in §3.2:
> The report related stories of 51 transgender and gender non-conforming individuals under the age of 30 who were murdered in the United States between 1995 and 2005.
Quite frankly, this number is even lower than the FBI's statistics.
> What is beginning to emerge from these multiple sources of data are the increased risks of variety of types of violence, though in particular sexual violence, faced by transgender people
Their conclusion directly states that there is an increased risk of violence for transgender people.
Secondarily, their conclusion also hints at there being empirical evidence that one cannot extrapolate from murder rates to cover all forms of victim-having crime. That would imply that your argument is indeed suffering from the law of averages.
You seem to be succumbing to a psychological phenomenon called projection.
In fact, you have set up a straw man argument, contrary to HN site guidelines of using the most charitable reading of my original comment, and then inverted your mental model such that you believe I am the one setting up the straw man.
In counter argument, you don’t like the laws of logic and probability because they don’t fit your narrative.
Edit: Furthermore, do we not agree, in the United States, under the rule of law, that it is a failure of civil responsibility, punishable by death in some jurisdictions, to murder even 1 person, let alone 44?
How is your argument anything other than we must do everything within our rights and capacity, as a country, to prevent each and every failure of civic responsibility?