Comparing cities to countries doesn't make sense.

Amsterdam has a murder rate commonly as high as the whole of the US. That isn't a rational comparison and isn't indicative of the murder rate of the Netherlands.

Both city's and countries rates vary a lot by area. However, comparing the numbers is IMO fairly meaningful for a general idea how dangerous they are.

Currently, St. Louis, United States, sit's at # 14 most dangerous city worldwide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate

Yet millionaires sit having tea in St Louis right now with zero fear that they are in any danger. City metrics are as useful as state and country. Some places are safer than others. Usually determined by how much mONEY is available in that place to pay for armed force to keep it safe.

Their fear (or lack thereof) and the real danger is not comparable.

To believe you aren’t in danger does not make it so.

I wonder if some cities in the deadlier Latin America countries rate higher than the deadlier Latin American average.

#1 Caracas, Venezuela, had 130.35 homicides per 100,000 residents.

That's significantly higher than average, but not 'crazy' relative to Venezuela's murder rate of 90 per 100,000.

On the other hand Washington DC was ~70-80 from 1988 to 1998, which would have put it on the current list of top 10 deadliest city's worldwide. DC: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-homicide-spikes-c...)

Current top 50: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-violent-cities-in-the-wo...

PS: Homicide rates are not necessarily accurate, but tend to be closer to reality than say rape statistics.