> Considering that vast majority of child abuse is at the hands of someone they know, rather than a stranger (see this DOJ report, page 10), it begins to feel a

> Considering that vast majority of child abuse is at the hands of someone they know, rather than a stranger (see this DOJ report, page 10), it begins to feel as if keeping kids indoors — with a babysitter, parent, relative, sibling, or step-parent — is actually LESS safe than them getting on their bikes and riding around. Let’s not restrict kids’ freedom due to a misunderstanding of actual risk. The majority of child abuse happening at the hands of someone the kids know could be because we don't let kids out of our sight more. If we let kids out of our site more would that number still be true? Point #2 reinforces this idea (anecdotally). It shows that child abuse has slowly been declining since 1991. The article says, "yeah well all crime has gone down" but are there any studies that show how that number correlates to increased protectiveness? I'm not saying the concept is wrong (I believe kids should have more freedom and wish my kids did). Just saying this article could tighten up its arguments better.