Overall, I agree with what you've written, though on the disparity in shooting incidents regarding race Roland Fryer's paper[1] came to different conclusions (it's different data but a more extensive data set and approach):
> In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find that, conditional on a police interaction, there are no racial differences in officer-involved shootings on either the extensive or intensive
margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified – we find, after controlling for suspect demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics. This coefficient is measured with considerable error and not statistically significant. This result is remarkably robust across alternative empirical specifications and subsets of the data. Partitioning the data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings. Investigating the intensive margin – the timing of shootings or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences.
If looking at any kind of force though:
> Blacks are almost eighteen percent more likely to incur any use of force in an interaction, accounting for all variables we can in the data. Hispanics are roughly twelve percent more likely. Both are statistically significant. Asians are slightly less likely, though not distinguishable from whites.
He does give caveats and goes into an extensive discussion on the limitations of the data available (one being the lack of data, which I would say should be the first order of the day for anyone looking for solutions to this) and possible interpretations. As an aside, I'm now unsurprised when I encounter progressives (an irony that might be amusing if they weren't so insidious and invidious) who've not heard of Fryer, nor how quickly they move to dismiss his work or even smear him without ever bothering to check his work in the slightest.
I didn't find anything about lightning, sadly (that would've been a welcome funny moment in amongst these awful stats), although earlier in the pandemic I checked the chances of being hit by lightning (for use as a comparison to some other stats) and was surprised to find out how high they are. Just last month I read this article[2] on the BBC site and decided never to go out in a thunderstorm ever again. If you read to the end it gets worse:
> In 2016, Bangladesh declared lightning strikes a natural disaster when more than 200 people died in the month of May alone, including 82 people on a single day.
Shocking, literally and figuratively.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399
[2]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58094680