> It makes complete sense. We take number of children and we take the number of times something bad occurs to that population So what you're saying is [deaths

> It makes complete sense. We take number of children and we take the number of times something bad occurs to that population So what you're saying is [deaths of children by gun]/[number of children]. That's not an absolute number, 1 in 100000 is just a percentage disguised (0.01%). My only remark on your comment is that only children living in houses that have a gun should be taken into account when calculating the risk of "having your child killed by a gun that you keep in your house".