A general response to comments on an earlier entry

[pegkerr]

This entry, I fear, is going to be rather impolite. Sorry. You have been warned.

I have attempted to draft replies to several comments left on the post I made earlier today about the false alarm of a child abduction in my neighborhood. Uncharacteristically, I realized that I just couldn't because I was getting much too angry. I thought about this most of the evening, wondering at my own reaction. The comments I was reacting to so strongly were made by people I really respect, including parents with more years of experience than me.

Look. As I told cakmpls I am perfectly well aware that stranger abduction is rare. But I am not willing to accept the judgment that my neighbors and I were "needlessly" upset, as if we don't have the intelligence and judgment to assess and accurately evaluate real-life risks. I truly believe that I was reasonably and responsibly upset. What some of you don't seem to be quite grasping is that this was personal for me. I do not make it a habit to watch television news just to scare myself with stories about awful things happening to children. In fact, I do not watch television news at all. I learned about this because a neighbor called me personally to tell me about something that was happening in my own neighborhood, at a park very close to my home that my girls go to all the time. Would I have preferred that she not call me, as if it was something I didn't need to know? Hell no. I was not merely reacting to a media-created amorphous threat Somewhere Out There. I was reacting to a call from a neighbor. This was MY park. This kid was the exact age of MY child. This kid went to MY neighborhood school. This kid was actually acquainted with MY neighbor. And from the information I was given (which turned out to be an error), an Amber Alert had been issued, meaning that an abduction was believed to have occurred.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want no more well-meaning comments directed at me explaining (as if I'm dense, as if I didn't know) that the risk of stranger abduction and harm is so low that I needn't worry about it. What I finally realized tonight was that the reason that these comments (which I understand were well-intended and meant to be reassuring) upset me so much is because both Rob and I have had childhood friends who were raped and murdered. By strangers, goddammit. The one I knew was the little sister of one of my best friends growing up. She was grown up when it happened to her--someone raped her and threw her over a cliff to die hundreds of feet below. But for Rob, it was a little girl, the first little girl he ever had a crush on. She was, I don't remember, ten or twelve or so when it happened. Her body was dumped along a lonely stretch of road like garbage. Neither murderer was ever caught.

From Rob's and my own personal experience, this threat is not just theoretical, not just a concern of scaredy-cat cowards or those easily cowed and manipulated by the media. To both of us, remembering Andrea and Ginny, it is searingly real. So forgive me if I reject well-meaning pats on the head. Forgive me if I seem rather defensive and emotional about this.

I think I have a right to be.

I'm making this a general post, because I don't want to be rude to anyone personally.

Comments

[ceilidh]

I don't think you're being overparanoid at all. I completely agree with you. I don't allow my child to go out by herself - she's not old enough (almost five) but there aren't any neighborhood children to play with, and we're also far too close to the street - not like at my parents' where it's far out in the country and a lot safer. You can't wrap kids in cotton wool, but you can't expose them to needless danger, either. :|

[ame-chan.livejournal.com]

I hope it wasn't anything I said that upset you. Really, what I was trying to say was "trust your own instincts, you'll know what to do." because only you know how to gauge your kids and *all* the complex risk factors and only you can make those decisions.

Stick to your guns.

[kokopoko.livejournal.com]

I am the same way with my daughter. I freak out if she's outside riding her bike on the driveway by herself. I check on her every 10 minutes. I won't let her get ice cream from the ice cream truck by herself, I have to be with her. Things happen. I was almost abducted when I was around her age in a large museum when we were on vacation. They almost had me but I managed to outrun and get to a museum clerk. The men then ran out of the museum as the clerk called security. I'm with you.

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

Agreed- stats don't mean much when you look at your children sleeping safe, sound, and so innocent at night.

You seem to balance keeping your children as safe as you are able and yet give them necessary independence.

*hugs*

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

Shoot--I left a comment to the more recent entry before reading this. Let me clarify: I don't think you did anything wrong. You thought there was a real crisis in your neighborhood. I blame the news media for not waiting to find out whether they had a mountain or a molehill. I've read a lot about serial killers, and often it's really shameful how much they got away with despite repeated arrests and repeated brushes with the law. But that's an issue of police investigation, not publicity, and it doesn't help for the news media to go too far the other way. You were not in a position to investigate how real the threat was; the news media were, and they didn't do their job right until after they'd messed up. That's my take on it, anyway.

[copperwise.livejournal.com]

Personal experience definitely has a lot to do with how one views the issue. I probably give less weight to "stranger danger" exactly because my childhood friend was raped and strangled by a family friend, and every single molestation victim I know was molested by either family or a family friend.

I would sure be as freaked out as you if it happened, as this had appeared to, in your very own park. Ugh. But I certainly had no intention of giving reassuring pats on the head or seem as if I weren't taking your fear seriously.

[jeanineers.livejournal.com]

Grrrr.

It irritates me a wee bit when people blame the media for following these types of stories. I'm often plenty disgusted with the television news myself, but many many more abducted children are found alive than when we hardly ever heard about these stories.

An abducted girl in our neck of the woods was recently recognized by an employee when her abducter took her to a restaurant. The employee saw her picture on television and in the paper because the media continued to flog the story.

The faster and more often the media can get the information to the public the more alert people are to watching for the abducted.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I'm conflicted in my response to this, based on what I know. On the one hand, yes, most missing people who are found are found within 24 hours. On the other hand, that's mostly done by police legwork--if it's good, they should be finding any possible witnesses, and the media usually don't come into it. In what I've read, the media mainly helps precisely when a case has gone on a long time and the police have mostly given up on it, or are stuck in an unproductive groove and need a kick-start in a new direction. Then one crusading parent (as with John Gacy) or publicity (as with finding the gun from the Tate/La Bianca murders) can make all the difference in the world. So I guess I do think you have a point, but I still think that widespread early publicity can do more harm than good.

[callunav.livejournal.com]

THANK you.

Not about whether or not to be alarmed - I woudn't dream of passing judgment, it sounded reasonable to me, and anyhow there's nothing good to come of telling someone not to *feel* something, as though feelings are something we ponder and decide to have or not have, according to expert testimony.

(Besides, I wish someone had ever been protective of /me/.)

But THANK you for realizing that you felt angry, figuring out a lot of the different reasons /why/ you felt angry (because it's never just one level) and then writing such a clear, articulate....not defense....elaboration. It's generous of you - you will feel whatever you feel, with or without the understanding of anyone here: to explain it is an act of courtesy.

You make very good sense.

And...I'll admit that I started to respond earlier today, to the other post, and then deleted my comment. It was partly that I was at work and pressed for time, but it was mostly that I was too bothered by the direction of some of the comments. So there's another piece of it.

It's a scary world. Kids get hurt. Kids get killed. Teaching children every trick in the book of yelling and running and fighting back when appropriate and asking for help and being cautious still can't guarantee safety. It's terrifying to love someone and know that you can't keep them safe; it's knowledge we all live with, every hour of every day (if we're sane). But when something in particular throws it in our faces, when something brings the threat even closer to home, paints the face of the nightmare clearly with recognizable features, what can we do but acknowledge that we are afraid? And be as wise as we can and as brave as we can and do all the best things we can, do everything that should be done, and still, in the depths, be afraid.

It's about love, that's all.

And this post is about respect.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure I'm not part of the original problem, since I don't believe I commented on that entry. I apologize in advance if you find me becoming part of the problem with this post. While I recognize the risk of annoying you, it's very much not my intention.

I find your emotional reaction to the credible report of an abduction in your neighborhood completely unsurprising, unexceptionable, normal, and appropriate. I'd like to think I'd have a very similar emotional reaction if something like that hit so close to me. Your and Rob's previous close connections to actual stranger abductions and murders makes it even more understandable.

What you don't seem to be grasping, to borrow your phrase, is that even the most reasonable and justifiable emotional reactions are not always your best guides to what to actually do. I'm not criticizing your actual handling of your actual children -- not my place, not my expertise, just not a good idea in any way. However, there's also a theoretical discussion going on around this issue, which has touched on whether society in general (including pundits, experts, and politicians as well as parents) and parents in particular are actually doing the best things for the children. For that discussion, I hope you'll agree that your emotional reaction to events that have hit near you isn't the only acceptable type of argument. I'm pushed to write this rather risky message because your post above sounds to me like you're rejecting the validity of statistics fairly broadly as a way for society and individuals to make decisions about such events, and I think that would be a mistake. Quite possibly I'm misreading the breadth of your statements!

I absolutely do not want to argue with you about your decisions for your children; I'm only interested in engaging on the broader/theoretical policy issue.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I think I understand your point, and I have no problem with it. How do we safely and responsibly manage risks about terrible things happening to children, and our own fears? One way I do, obviously, is that the girls and I are taking karate. I'll talk about this some more when I do the karate identity post.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

How do we safely and responsibly manage risks about terrible things happening to children, and our own fears?

Yep, that's exactly the key point. The precautionary principle can only take one so far, because (I hope we all agree) eventually raising a child totally wrapped in cotton-wool batting, never having any independence, and never being out of sight of at least 5 certified competent adults (deliberately pushing to an extreme I hope we can all agree would be bad) starts to be damaging in and of itself. It's quite clear to me that one must take many risks, and allow a child many risks, in the process of growing to adulthood. One learns to cope with bigger risks, it seems to me, largely by practicing with smaller ones, and any child, as they move towards adulthood, will have to cope with many risks.

I certainly agree that taking karate is a useful step. It teaches both skills and attitudes that are useful and relevant.

There are situations (and I'm not suggesting specific recent events constitute one; or that they don't) where managing our fears about our children is the best thing, even the only thing, to do. That is, where we must largely ignore them (at least as to letting them control our actions) after careful consideration.

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

"There are situations ... where managing our fears about our children is the best thing, even the only thing, to do. That is, where we must largely ignore them (at least as to letting them control our actions) after careful consideration."

Disclaimer: I did a lot of work with rape issues and survivors, and that colors my reaction to your statement.

I agree we can't let fear paralyze us or dictate our actions. However, at least in the research on sexual assault, the majority of survivors talk about feeling afraid or uncomfortable or simply wrong about a situation, but choosing to ignore those feelings. They had learned that it's not okay to be afraid, and so they ignored a valid warning to get away from a dangerous situation.

I don't think you're saying we should flat-out suppress feelings of fear and ignore the risks that are out there. But personally, I'd rather teach people to listen to that fear. Don't let it control you, but do respect it.

Heck, I feel a twinge of fear every time my little girl leaves the house to play with her friends. (We moved here about 7 months ago, and she's young enough that this is the first time she's really left the house to go play.) I don't demand she stay cooped up in our house under constant supervision, but I don't think ignoring the fear is the right solution. I mean, I know of one registered sex offender living about three houses down, and I also know there's a good chance there are other potential predators, if not on our street, then within a block or so.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I think there's a big, and important, difference between (1) "feeling afraid or uncomfortable or simply wrong about a situation" when it's a specific, particular situation that one is in (what I think you're talking about) and (2) feeling afraid or uncomfortable or wrong in some general, everyday situation because someone, somewhere, sometime, came to grief in such a situation. The former is using all our senses, even ones we aren't aware of, to give us useful information; the latter is letting groundless emotions rule our lives.

Ignoring fear in the specific immediate situation is often a bad idea (although people in dangerous occupations have to learn to do it, and people who are taking a risk to help others may consciously or instictively do it). Managing fear when there's nothing we can do about the feared thing or when anything we could do has a greater risk of a negative outcome is usually a good thing. (Have you seen the movie The Village? I find it very on-point to this discussion, but don't want to be a spoiler. I have an entry in my own LJ in which I discuss this behind a cut.)

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

One difference is that sexual assault is common. It's not rare like abduction.

B

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I'll happily distinguish general fears from specific fears. I agree with you that if you have a feeling about a particular situation, person, or whatever, a feeling that it/they are not quite right, that you're not comfortable with it/them, that it's smart to take note of that fear.

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

How do we safely and responsibly manage risks about terrible things happening to children?

I think one piece is simply to recognize what you already know. Nothing we do can ever guarantee they'll be safe. So we grit our teeth and try to give them every damn tool we can think of to help them learn to protect themselves. We try to minimize that risk as much as humanly possible.

I believe there's a huge difference between teaching kids the tools to be safe and sheltering a child so they never see the outdoors until they're 18. Isolating children doesn't protect them; it protects the parents from having to face the reality that the world isn't 100% safe, and probably never will be.

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

How do we safely and responsibly manage risks about terrible things happening to children, and our own fears?

I think we can manage risk without making our children fear life (or all strangers for that matter). There are terrible people out there, but I like to believe there are far more good ones. All we can do as parents is exactly what you're doing - let your children know there are risks to certain behaviors and arming them the best we can with defense skills. But It's hard (for me at least) to balance that with letting them live life. The life we give them isn't our own. It's theirs. And even at their age, it's really up to them to make the choices. It's frightening, but I recall wandering around the neighborhood with friends at around 8 or 9 and living life, and making bad (and good) choices. Sometimes I listened to my parents and sometimes I didn't. All we can do is hope our children make the right choices and are lucky enough to avoid these dangers.

*sigh*

I avoid the news as well.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"How do we safely and responsibly manage risks about terrible things happening to children, and our own fears?"

I don't even know the answer to this question.

What I've been preaching is to get beyond fear and to rationality. To me, that's the best way. Fear is a good emotion, but like all emotions it has a place in the pantheon.

But this kind of thinking doesn't seem to work broadly in our society. We have a completely idiotic counter-terrorism policy because we're reacting out of fear, and personal experience, instead of from rationality.

B

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Since I'm one who mentioned statistics, as well as media coverage, I'm sure that I was part of the original problem. As I said before, I mentioned the statistics only because I was jarred by your comment about the mother being tempted to just about kill him. And I understand that you got your information from a local person, not from TV. I did not write my earlier posts very well, I realize now, because there's at least one "you" that was meant to be generic and reads as if it means "you, Peg." I stuck too much of my own opinion about media coverage into comments to you, rather than (as I eventually did) putting them in my own LJ. I apologize for doing those things.

But what dd_b writes here says (better) some of what I was trying to get at. I especially appreciate this phrasing: "even the most reasonable and justifiable emotional reactions are not always your best guide to what to actually do."

I'm not consistent in my emotional reactions to events from my childhood. When I was 9, one of my good friends, her younger sister, and a younger boy were all killed when the pickup truck they were riding in the bed of turned over after an accident. I get a sick feeling every time I see people riding in the bed of a pickup, and I would never let my kids do it. On the other hand, when I was about 12 my best friend's 16-year-old brother was killed in a scuba-diving accident. Seeing people scuba-diving doesn't affect me at all, and I'm quite sure that if any of my kids had wanted to learn scuba-diving at that age I would have agreed.

I don't know why I have the different emotional reactions to the two, and I realize that my attitudes toward my children's doing them may come from my emotions rather than my thinking. If I found out that the statistics on both activities contradicted my choices, I probably would change my viewpoint on my kids' doing them, though my emotional reactions would stay the same. But that's just me.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

That's a really interesting insight, that you have different reactions to the risk of riding in a pickup truck vs. the risk of scuba diving. My hunch is that the reason you might feel differently is that people's perception of how great a risk is depends on whether they think they are in control or not. A passenger in the pickup truck has less control (someone else is driving; someone else may hit them and they can't stop it) but someone who is scuba diving can check the oxygen level, decide how deep to dive, decide when to come back up, etc.

As I said, one of the ways I'm controlling my fear is by having me and the girls take karate.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

You may be into something with the control explanation; even if something fairly minor goes wrong in the truck--getting lightly rear-ended, for example--the bed-riders can't do much of anything to prevent disaster to themselves; in scuba-diving, most minor things that go wrong can be compensated for or corrected, or the diver can surface. Diving is something that you can train for, to minimize danger; there is nothing a bed-rider can do to minimize their danger.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and it also explains why most people are so much more afraid of flying than driving, although statistically, Flying is much safer. When behind the wheel, people have the impression (and alas, sometimes the illusion) that they are in control. Whereas when they get on a plane, all they can do is hope that the pilot isn't drunk and the plane doesn't crash--they can't do anything about it themselves, even if something goes wrong.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I've heard that about the control issue in plane vs. car, but for me, the difference is more in the chances of survival if I am in an accident. A lot higher percentage of people walk away from, or at least recover from, car accidents than from plane accidents.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"You may be into something with the control explanation..."

In my lastest book I wrote about six common ways in which the perception of risk is different from the reality of risk. That was one of them.

B

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the different levels of concern people have over danger from strangers and danger from family, friends, and acquaintances also has to do with control. We can observe our family, friends, and acquaintances, and we think that we can accurately read them and assess them; strangers give us no opportunity to do so.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Of course. People tend to underestimate risks in areas where they are in control, and overestimate them in areas where they are not in control. It's why people are afraid to fly but not to drive, or are afraid of abduction -- or assault, or rape -- by strangers but not by relatives.

B

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

There's that old chestnut, and it's very true: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I think healthy paranoia and being aware of your surroundings keeps you alive. I didn't read your earlier post, was away this afternoon. But my sister's BIL was murdered, and a good friend's sister was raped and murdered by a stranger. So--stats may, indeed, suggest some things. But personal experience has taught me that I'd rather be careful and teach those I love to be careful, than be wrong.

Don't ever apologize for protecting your daughters. They're much too young to do a good job of it--it's up to you and Rob. I'm sorry you had an unnecessary scare, but I'm glad you acted to protect your girls. It might not have been a false alarm. You did the right thing, as you know.

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

Hey... yeah, I quoted stats, but that was a response to the situation at large, not to your personal situation. As a parent, I can only imagine how frightening it was for you and hey, stats don't matter dick when it's right in your neighborhood. So I do apologize if I upset you in anyway. That wasn't my intention.

[aome.livejournal.com]

I grew up in a reasonable neighborhood. A child less than a mile from us was taken out of her bedroom via her window. There was a girl who was kidnapped and turned up a couple of years later - astonishingly alive, but she'd been sexually assaulted during that time (I think she was three when she was taken) - you don't forget these things. I live in an even safer area now, relatively speaking, and I still am already starting to worry about the time coming when the girls will be old enough to play outside by themselves, walk to school, etc. I think your initial fear was completely justified. Rare or not, it happens. And you NEVER want it to be your kid.

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

I didn't get my thoughts sorted out enough to comment on the earlier entry, but I thought I'd go ahead and comment here...

When I was doing sexual assault awareness and counseling work, what I saw wasn't a lot of "overreacting" or "emotional responses". What I saw was that the majority of people don't want to admit that they and their families are not 100% safe. In the past month alone, I know two people who were browsing the sex offender registry and were shocked, shocked I say, to realize there was a registered offender living within a block or so of their home. (And I won't go into the huge majority of offenders who are either unregistered or simply haven't been caught.)

There are always reasons to not react: statistics, false reports, media hype, etc. Personally, I feel much better when I see people who recognize that, whatever the statistics, there is danger and that danger is real. I know people who choose not to worry about rape and abduction and so on...it's a lot easier to be intellectual, to analyze the numbers and find rational, logical reasons why I don't have to be afraid or worried. I've known survivors who were told by their friends and family all of the logical, rational reasons their rape wasn't that big of a deal. Shockingly enough, it didn't do much to help those survivors...but it probably made the friends and family who were explaining it all to feel better.

I don't care how many abductions there were in the past year or how safe we are today; it's a big deal. When there's a chance, no matter how small, that it could be my kids? It's a big deal. When you know someone who was abducted and killed? It's a big deal. The fact that this was a false alarm is a relief, but it doesn't change the fact that yes, it is a big deal.

Hope this was somewhat coherent. I always worry about early-morning posts when my brain hasn't completely woken up yet...

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

It was perfectly coherent, and I appreciate your input. Thank you.

[callunav.livejournal.com]

I don't care how many abductions there were in the past year or how safe we are today; it's a big deal....The fact that this was a false alarm is a relief, but it doesn't change the fact that yes, it is a big deal.

Amen.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

It's not theoretical. There's been an Amber alert on in my state for about three days now.

Unfortunately, this one is *not* about stranger danger; these two children were abducted after the grandparents and uncle watching them were killed, and they think the children's father is responsible. I don't even know what parentling choices you could possibly make to keep your kids out of a situation like that, aside from not having kids with a psychotic in the first place.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I know that when I was a child (I mean 7-9 age range, about twenty-five years ago in Los Angeles) I and the other children I knew were allowed far more freedom to go places by ourselves than seems the norm now. We could walk to the candy store, buy candy, and walk home, for instance (maybe five blocks?), or go to the park to play without adult supervision. Our parents would want to know where we were going, but they didn't accompany us if we knew how to get there and about how long we'd be gone.

But now I never-- and I mean never-- see children that age walking by themselves or in pairs. So though I personally think that degree of autonomy was generally good and enjoyable for the kids, if I were to let my hypothetical child wander by herself, not only would she have no one to wander with, but she would look like a target-- because no other parents are letting their kids go out alone, so she'd be the only one. So because of the way parents behave in general, I would have to conform to that standard, or else I'd be putting my child in more actual danger than all of our parents were putting us in twenty years ago.

I do wonder sometimes if there's going to be a major psychological difference as adults between this cohort of children who grew up with a great deal of supervision and mine, which generally grew up with less. I wonder if they'll be comfortable traveling by themselves or to distant places, for instance, or if that's how they'll rebel.

I don't think you over-reacted

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

One of the things DeBecker discusses in the book I rec'd (Protecting The Gift) is that it's really dangerous for us, parents specially, to try to rationalize away our fears. There's usually a good reason that our instincts will warn us if a situation is dangerous, and we should listen to that.
A predatory attack happening within one's home "territory" qualifies as a good reason, afaiac.
(Although, I'm very happy it was a false alarm in this case)

Re: I don't think you over-reacted

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

There's usually a good reason that our instincts will warn us if a situation is dangerous, and we should listen to that.
A predatory attack happening within one's home "territory" qualifies as a good reason, afaiac.

Instincts shouldn't be ignored, but human instincts, which were developed over millennia in far different living conditions, are not necessarily reliable in the contemporary world. The leading cause of death in children is unintentional injury; the second-leading cause (after car accidents--and don't we all readily allow our children into cars?) of unintentional injury to children is burns; the most common site of burns for newborns to 4-year-olds is the kitchen. Yet parents routinely allow their toddlers into the kitchen without the "danger" instinct kicking in. (Sure, it does if the kid reaches for the top of the stove, but that's an immediate situation more akin to actually seeing someone trying to pull one's child into a car.) Far more children die each year from car accidents, kitchen burns, and even bike accidents than from stranger abductions, so our "danger" instincts would serve our children better if they kicked in when the kid gets into a car, comes into the kitchen, or climbs on a bike. But those are probably too new in human history for us to have developed instincts about them.

Of course the knowledge that there is a predator in one's territory is cause for extra caution until one can be reasonably sure the predator is gone. That's an immediate, specific situation. But for more general caution, the problem is that in the real world, any situation is potentially dangerous; the devil is in the details. I doubt that there is a park in America, or a block of homes, or a school, or maybe even a church, where no child has ever been molested. I doubt that there are very many towns in America, no matter how small, where no child has ever, in its history, disappeared and either never been found or been found dead. That's where statistics can be helpful in telling us where to direct our concern: they tell us how many, how often, how recently, how near--things that instinct can't tell us.

Re: I don't think you over-reacted

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I've read his books. Parts of them are very good, and other parts are just weird.

B

Re: I don't think you over-reacted

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

I've only read Protecting The Gift. What struck you as wierd?
/curious

Re: I don't think you over-reacted

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

It's been a while, and I'm travelling. I'll re-look at The Gift of Fear when I return home.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"What I finally realized tonight was that the reason that these comments (which I understand were well-intended and meant to be reassuring) upset me so much is because both Rob and I have had childhood friends who were raped and murdered."

That makes a lot of sense. Emotional reactions to risk are much stronger than intellectual ones. This is why so much of security is irrational. Humans are hard-wired to behave this way; it's perfectly normal.

B