But the idiots don’t understand what “per capita” means. So they just cite the total volume of violent crime, and neglect to mention that there is a lesser chance of an individual being a victim of violent crime.

I get it. It's not so much that they're ignoring "per capita", it's that they're seeing it from the angle of "what's the chance of this happening in my neighborhood". If the chances of getting murdered are, idk, 1/100 in the city, and 3/100 in the sticks, but my neighborhood in the sticks has 25 people in it versus a 300 person apartment complex, it's more likely that one of my neighbors will get killed in the city, and while sure, you're not the one that's dead, survivor's guilt fucking sucks.

This is also not taking into account that the crime rate isn't homogeneous across an entire municipality, the likelihood of a rural person's ability to afford a privileged neighborhood in the city, and how that impacts their perceptions.