Answer to question 2:

Nonviolent action is no more dangerous: the possibility of being killed in a nonviolent conflict is much lower than in a violent conflict for both participants and bystanders. In a violent conflict, the only option for the two sides is to shoot or attack each other, which greatly increases the odds. At the very least, for participants in nonviolent struggle, there is no such thing as being killed by “friendly fire.” They may be harmed by the movement’s opposition, but the nonviolent movement itself does not use weapons. Moreover, there are non-violent methods that reduce the chance of being physically harmed.

You may know of several examples where nonviolent activists were injured and killed. There are certainly plenty of these examples and they are often becoming more widely known. However, as mentioned, there are also safer nonviolent methods than protesting, such as striking, boycotting and collective disappearance. This happened, for example, in Sierra Leone in 1997, in resistance to a military coup. Read more here about how Sierra Leone was able to hold democratic elections after 34 years of dictatorship, following several non-violent actions.