Originally Posted by OldMarksman
I remembered it wrong. The estimated lifetime average likelihood of a twelve year old being injured in a violent crime at least once calculates out to 40%. The likelihood of being attacked at least once is estimated at 83%. The calculations are based on National Crime Statistics annual victimization rates and life-span stats from the National Center for Health Statistics. See this.
Even if we accept that math as valid, this is a good example of why averages tend to be worthless.
I literally don't know a single person who has ever had to defend themselves against a violent crime, with the possible
exception of a lady or two who has been a victim of domestic abuse.
Not a single person.
There is absolutely no way that 8 out of 10 people that I know have been attacked or 4 out of 10 have been victims of violent crime.
Even if I include school yard fights and other teenage-type fisticuffs, it doesn't come close to 40%, say nothing of 80%.
The only way those numbers could possibly be even remotely close to correct is if there are massive populations of people wherein nearly 100% have been attacked or victims of violent crime.
I find it completely implausible.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.