> then having an actual understanding of the frequency is important
In which case it’s important to add some more context to the numbers you cited.
Lightning strikes kill about 50 people/year. Police kill about 1,000 (US).
You’re significantly more likely do die at the hands of police than you are from lightning.
Does that make either occurrence particularly likely? That’s where things get messy. Lightning doesn’t discriminate. Cops do. A person of color has no disadvantage against lightning, but they do when police are involved.
Bottom line: this comparison is problematic and misleading. This was the point of my first response.
Understanding that on the whole it’s extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning doesn’t mean someone should go stand in a field during a lightning storm holding an umbrella.
In which case it’s important to add some more context to the numbers you cited.
Lightning strikes kill about 50 people/year. Police kill about 1,000 (US).
You’re significantly more likely do die at the hands of police than you are from lightning.
Does that make either occurrence particularly likely? That’s where things get messy. Lightning doesn’t discriminate. Cops do. A person of color has no disadvantage against lightning, but they do when police are involved.
Bottom line: this comparison is problematic and misleading. This was the point of my first response.
Understanding that on the whole it’s extremely unlikely to be struck by lightning doesn’t mean someone should go stand in a field during a lightning storm holding an umbrella.