3 ms·

So, I'm now reading the article he cites to support this. It's an old article, from 2013. It states that: "Police statistics show 25 children of the 46,718 re

by new299 9y ago

So, I'm now reading the article he cites to support this. It's an old article, from 2013. It states that: "Police statistics show 25 children of the 46,718 reported missing in 2011 listed as "abducted by stranger." And then goes on to show that in the majority of cases that the abductor was known to the parents. So, the useful dataset would be. * How many of the children were abducted with unsupervised? * In the Canadian population how many children in total are left unsupervised regularly. From that we could calculate: Percentage of children left unsupervised regularly who are abducted. Percentage of children not left unsupervised regularly who are abducted. Of course, correlation != causation. But if there is no difference between the two populations then that would tell us something. However, there isn't enough data in the article to make this assertion.

tempestn 9y ago
Fair enough. The original statistic could well be inaccurate. I was simply responding to the comment that it's irrelevant without knowing the number of underage bus riders.
- new299 9y ago
  What is the relevance of the statistic present? I can't see is? (honestly). If no (or very few) children are left unsupervised in Canada, then the statistic isn't relevant to calculating the probability of unsupervised (or lone traveling) children being abducted is it?
  - tempestn 9y ago
    I'm using personal experience. I live in Canada, and I'm a parent, so I tend to frequent places that kids congregate. From my experience there are plenty of opportunities out there for someone to abduct children if they were halfway intelligent and motivated to do so. If indeed there was only one incidence over a two year span in the entire country (although your reference is apparently 25, not one?) it therefore suggests a lack of potential abductors.
    - new299 9y ago
      > it therefore suggests a lack of potential abductors Or a lack of unsupervised children? I don't know. I think you're probably correct. But really the assertion would be might stronger if there was more than anecdotal evidence to back it up. This is what I'm trying to say the data presented in the article, is on the level of anecdotal evidence. Which, tends to weaken the argument rather than strengthen it.

by new299 9y ago

tempestn 9y ago

Fair enough. The original statistic could well be inaccurate. I was simply responding to the comment that it's irrelevant without knowing the number of underage bus riders.

new299 9y ago
What is the relevance of the statistic present? I can't see is? (honestly). If no (or very few) children are left unsupervised in Canada, then the statistic isn't relevant to calculating the probability of unsupervised (or lone traveling) children being abducted is it?
- tempestn 9y ago
  I'm using personal experience. I live in Canada, and I'm a parent, so I tend to frequent places that kids congregate. From my experience there are plenty of opportunities out there for someone to abduct children if they were halfway intelligent and motivated to do so. If indeed there was only one incidence over a two year span in the entire country (although your reference is apparently 25, not one?) it therefore suggests a lack of potential abductors.
  - new299 9y ago
    > it therefore suggests a lack of potential abductors Or a lack of unsupervised children? I don't know. I think you're probably correct. But really the assertion would be might stronger if there was more than anecdotal evidence to back it up. This is what I'm trying to say the data presented in the article, is on the level of anecdotal evidence. Which, tends to weaken the argument rather than strengthen it.