This article is so lightweight and is written in such a linkbaity style that it's hard to take it seriously.
The article says you have a 1 in 16,000 chance of being murdered in a given year. To put that into perspective, think about "the 1%". If there's a 1 in 100 chance of you being rich, then the chance of you being murdered is 160 times more rare.
(I'm uncomfortable constructing an argument using relative comparisons like that. It feels like a logical fallacy, though I'm unsure which.)
As a long time Economist reader, I can offer with some confidance that their tone in this article isn't likely to suggest disrespect, but is indicative of a sarcastic tone that they're well known for. I suspect their intent was to highlight the morbid and impersonal nature of these reports, and not give actual advice.
I'd readily concede that they forgot the wink at the end.
The article says you have a 1 in 16,000 chance of being murdered in a given year. To put that into perspective, think about "the 1%". If there's a 1 in 100 chance of you being rich, then the chance of you being murdered is 160 times more rare.
(I'm uncomfortable constructing an argument using relative comparisons like that. It feels like a logical fallacy, though I'm unsure which.)