OT: And you thought the world was sane...

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Seriously, a random encounter with a frenzied knife-wielding killer is so unlikely as to be virtually negligible. I'd call it paranoid scaremongering.

The specifics are somewhat contrived, about on par with being killed in a car accident as a pedestrian, but it strikes me as more of a joke and a comment on stereotypes of people's thoughts on the matter rather than an actual argument. Such contrived situations simply make it mostly morally unambiguous, so that it is easier to make fun of the target(s).

If you want something slightly more realistic, and hence closer to an argument, try a different situation.
Suppose for a moment that you are a drug addict turned thief to get money for your next fix. There are several houses on the street, all with silent alarms (but you know how to stop those; just cut the phone line - easy). However, you happen to have some intel about these houses (now it starts to get slightly contrived); you checked the local gun registries under the freedom of information act, and so you know which houses have firearms (it's also a very law-abiding place; anyone with firearms will have them registered - more contrived now, I know). It's a fairly ritzy neigborhood; most will have dvd players, jewelry, or other rather valuable, readily hawkable items. You'd wait till everyone was away at work, but you need your fix now; everyone's at home, probably asleep. You don't have a gun (if you did, you'd hawk it for fix money), but do have a kitchen knife. Which houses are you more likely to burgle: the ones you know have guns or the ones you know don't?

While individually the circumstances for such scenarios are usually a bit contrived, it is a fairly simple matter to come up with many such scenerios, and the collective probability (the chance of at least one of them) becomes reasonable.