(b) if we subscribe to your idea that homicides (intentional acts) are a more serious risk than (in your words) unavoidable pure accidents. But the opposite is probably true. The intentional acts, I would argue, are easier to predict, plan for and avoid, especially in an environment that valorises the person taking them on, than pure and unavoidable accidents.
[WS:] That may be true from and individual's point of view, but not necessarily from that of a society as a whole. That is to say, the society as a whole can do little to affect random incidents (e.g. mechanical failure that causes death or injury), but it can significantly affect intentional acts of its members, especially the incidence i.e. overall rate of occurrence, if not individual acts. However, to an individual exposed to risk, it matters little whether the society as a whole can or cannot affect that particular risk - what matter is how well he or she can avoid that risk, and from that point of view, risk posed by intentional acts may be easier to avoid in certain circumstances.
Furthermore, your point that intentional risk is easier to predict could also mean that willingly undertaking that risk may require greater personal bravery than undertaking random risk. The random risk, being more difficult to predict, is also more likely to be ignored, and a person exposed to it may be less aware of it. However, people are usually more aware of risk posed to them by intentional acts of others - and that requires the presence of coping mechanism, such as bravery.
The bottom line is that frivolous dismissing someone else's risks, occupational or otherwise, strikes me as cheap flippancy aiming to impress fellow hoodlums rather than a bona fide argument in a rational discussion.
Wojtek