Cops face a higher number of potential threats, but that doesn't mean the actual rate of incident is any higher for them. It just means that they have a harder time predicting where the threat is going to come from.
That's a rather odd argument. They may face a higher number of possible threats...but that doesn't mean they have a higher rate of incidents.
It makes me wonder what you mean by "incidents". For example, if we're talking about a roofer....we may learn his biggest threat comes from a poorly positioned ladder, or malfunctioning ladder (like it doesn't lock into place properly)...does that mean he's facing danger every time he climbs the ladder? Or only those times when it's malfunctioning? If it's only when malfunctioning....then arguably, it's not a danger inherent in the job of roofing so much as it is the danger of using a ladder (which is just part of roofing and doesn't necessarily have to be if roofers switch to say, a cherry picker).
Professional rockclimbers and skydivers don't have to worry about getting shot, but the fact that they only have to worry about one threat (i.e. splattering on the ground) doesn't mean that their risk is lower.
Well I'm not sure how you would measure the dangers of rock climbing. Last time I watched something on professional climbers, I was left with the impression that they received at least minor injuries every time they climbed. Bruises and scrapes are a part of that job. As for deaths and serious injuries....that seems like it's highly dependent upon the type of climbing and the safety tools used.
As for parachuting instructors....I honestly don't know how you'd go about calculating the dangers. If there's only 100 instructors in the nation (and arguably, there was at one point) and one of them dies because he didn't pack his chute properly....does that really mean that the rate of death for the job is 1 in 100? Or is the sample too small to accurately determine?
More importantly though, neither of those jobs compels anyone by duty to face danger. If a skydiver decides weather conditions are too dangerous, he can just not jump. He may lose a client...but it's a choice we want him to make. The rock climbee may lose a sponsor....but he doesn't have to face any dangers he doesn't want to.
That's not the same for a cop. If a couple of kids are shooting up their school and he's the only cop there....we still want him to go in there and face inordinate danger. He may choose not to...but if he does, he won't likely be a cop for long.
Way to conflate being in the Navy with being a SEAL. Most Navy jobs aren't dangerous and most seamen aren't SEALs.
If we're trying to quantify danger, then no, the type of danger doesn't matter.
I think the death rate for SEALS is somewhere around 30% anyway....so it is a bad example.
I think the point though is valid...you're comparing unlike dangers. There's a danger to truckers....but it mostly comes from trying to work long hours and stay awake. There's also a danger that SEALS face....but it mostly comes from avoiding being killed by someone trying to kill you.
One of those dangers involves a lot of training, a lot of effort, split second life and death decisions, and a certain element of luck. The other danger involves making sure you get a good night's sleep.
That's why it doesn't matter if the truckers fall asleep often enough to get more deaths or serious injuries per capita than the SEALS....it's always more dangerous to be a SEAL.
