>>>>What a muck you can be. Yes, I did read it. I guess it comes down to what you think is safe/unsafe.
>>>
>>>I have no idea what a "muck" is.
>>>
>>>I agree that we seem to differ in our perception of safety, and of course, the data doesn't provide enough information to really measure that. I suspect that looking at the details of the listed assaults, we'd find that the vast majority occurred between people who knew each other, so that the risk of random assault is actually even lower. (I suspect that because whenever I've looked at data like this, that was the case.)
>>
>>So, having your child where the violence is is safe as long as it is not caused by someone they know. OK, I think I got it now.
>
>You're missing my point. For an analogy, consider the difference between having a neighbor who's known to beat his wife, and having a neighbor who's known to attack people at random. While I wouldn't want either one, the second one seems a lot more of a risk to me and my family than the first.
>
>How many of those reported assaults in malls were essentially domestic violence? How many were groups of kids (whether gang-affiliated or not) who got out of hand? (I suspect shopkeepers and mall security may be pretty quick to call police when an incident involves a group of kids.) On the other side, how many of them were people attacking a stranger?
>
>I don't want to be around violence, but I also don't want to unnecessarily restrict my life through fear. Everything is a measure of risk vs. benefit.


You know, instead of Tracy and me searching for all the many links that will now show gang violence and violence against strangers, that you will then say is invalid because of some new variable, how about you do the searching and find all the links that prove the opposite. Or let's be done with it.