I agree with DoB. I think what the wrench meant was that statistically (number of shootings per capita for example) the area may seem bad, but if you consider the data you may conclude that the risk is not as high for you personally as it looks on the face of it.

The reality may be that most of the crimes committed in the area are drug deals gone bad, gang on gang, domestic violence, etc. So one could say that if you are in the area but not doing things you shouldn't do (being in a gang, in a situation with domestic conflict, trying to sell or buy drugs, drunk, etc.), your chances of being caught up in a crime are much lower. I'm not saying there isn't the risk of your being innocently caught up in one of these crimes (for example, mugged by a druggie for your money), but overall your risk is not as high as a simple reading of the statistics would indicate.

Off topic: I read an interesting article where an author had an unscientific study. He compared the increased risk of dying or being injured from crime in the inner city (larger cities) to the increased risk of death or injury from a car accident when living out in the suburbs or farther and having long commutes into work. It is known that people living in inner cities drive less miles on average than those that live in more far-flung locations.

His unscientific conclusion was that the risk to life or limb was about a wash between the risk of crime in the inner city and the greater risk of a car accident when commuting/driving more miles while living farther out. I.e., - the tendency of suburbanites to think that living in the city is a higher risk than where they live may be false conclusion on their part. Full disclosure, I live in the inner city.

All this being said, it is wise to be discerning in rough neighborhoods and take some sensible precautions.