I love statistics

No one on Earth is more likely to kill you, statistically speaking, than a close relative of yours. (Little Hawk)

I might be wrong if the English word "relative" is used differently from its German translation. If it is used in the same sense as in German then the sentence is wrong, for the most dangerous person to you is someone who is (living) very close to you but isn't related biologically. Stepfathers are much more likely to kill than fathers are.

BTW, the killers are predominantly or even nearly exclusively males. Only for toddlers below 2 years of age, the mother is a considerable danger (in particular,very shortly after birth).

Another angle on the same sentence:
No one on Earth is more likely to kill you, statistically speaking, than a close relative of yours.
So what happens if a woman leaving a bus at night some hundred meters from her house sees a male figure leaning in the darkness of a shadow and when the figure steps forward realises that the male is her partner? Is she more or is she less afraid than seconds before when she didn't know the identity of the male?

LH's (basically correct) statistic can be misleading, as this example shows, because it is averaged across all times of the life including for instance infanticide by the mother immediately after birth. But we spend much more of our daily time among people we know closely and relations than we spend with strangers. So there is much more opportunity for closely related people to run into a fatal argument than for complete strangers.

If we look at identical time periods the statistic is different. One hour spent with a stranger is much more dangerous than one hour spent with a relative. We just spend so much more hours with relatives.

Such use of statistics reminds me of that stupid therapist who once advised students to leave the kitchen or the bathroom when they seriously quarreled with the partner, because statistics show that most family murders happen in these two rooms.

Wolfgang