Well first off, if you doubt it's true, all you need to do to disprove it is to provide a single example of white males being the subject of more risk than any other group by population, in any metric, that isn't genetic or similar. I haven't found one. Again, they are certainly included in risk-prone groups, as I listed, but as far as I can tell, not as the sole members of a most-risk-prone group.

Second, the whole point of all of this is to look at who is most at risk. Yes, white males do encounter risk. But that's not what's important: what's important is, who is most at risk? The answer, in the apparent absence of evidence to the contrary, would appear to be "not white males".

It's usually at this point, when someone says that this is divisive and not helpful, that we get to "All Lives Matter".

Black Lives Matter was explicitly intended to only point out the risks of being black in this country, in order to raise awareness of those unique risks, and to try to reach some social justice. This had the unfortunate side effect of shining a light away from white people's problems. White people still had problems, and they still wanted people to care. Some white people even felt personally attacked by Black Lives Matter. So white people found the phrase divisive, and made up a new phrase to take the focus away from BLM's core issues: All Lives Matter. "Don't worry about only black people's problems, because I want you to worry about my problems, too."

It may make white males feel that it's divisive, but really it's just difficult to accept that other people may be more in need, in one aspect or another. The goal of all this is to focus on the groups that are at the most risk, acknowledge them, and try to address their issues.

The US is dangerous no matter who you are. It's just that in every category of risk, it's less dangerous if you're a white male.