2 ms·
> However, the practise of letting your children walk results in many walks over time, and it takes just one abduction to make the situation really bad. In othe
by TheCoelacanth 6y ago
> However, the practise of letting your children walk results in many walks over time, and it takes just one abduction to make the situation really bad. In other words, over time, the probability of an abduction will (albeit slowly) go towards 1.
They will die of old age long before the chance of abduction gets anywhere close to 0.1 much less 1.
To be conservative, assume that 1% of US children are allowed to go unsupervised walks (~750k children) and that there is 0% chance of abduction by a stranger without allowing unsupervised walks. Each year about 350 children are abducted by strangers[1]. Under those assumptions, there is a 0.04% chance of abduction each year. That would be less than 1% lifetime chance assuming that they do this for all 18 years of their childhood. Even less if you make more realistic assumptions (I certainly hope that more than 1% of 17 year olds are allowed to go on walks and that parents are waiting until after their children can walk before letting them go on walks by themselves).
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wisconsin-missinggirl-data/kidnapped-children-make-headlines-but-abduction-is-rare-in-u-s-idUSKCN1P52BJ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wisconsin-missinggirl-dat...
- kqr 6y agoThough with three children under the same policy, you get just over 2 % risk that at least one of them get abducted. The upside is hard to quantify (especially for me who view it as obvious that children should be allowed unsupervised walks) but I can totally see how the 2 % number with a very serious downside can get someone to doubt. (I know what "conservative estimate" means, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)