7 destinations that Americans think are dangerous but are statistically safer than major US cities

Last year, I mentioned to a colleague that I was thinking about spending a month in Medellín. The look on her face said it all before her mouth did.

"Isn't that where all the drug cartels are?"

I hear this constantly. People throw around words like "dangerous" and "unsafe" when talking about certain countries, yet the numbers tell a completely different story. Mexico City has a lower homicide rate than Houston. Bogotá is statistically safer than several major American cities.

We've bought into narratives shaped by Netflix shows, cable news fear-mongering, and outdated reputations that haven't matched reality in decades. Meanwhile, the actual crime statistics show something fascinating. Many places Americans avoid are objectively safer than cities we visit without a second thought.

Today, I'm breaking down seven destinations that carry dangerous reputations but are statistically safer than major US cities. Some of these numbers might genuinely shock you.

1) Medellín and Bogotá, Colombia

When people think Colombia, they think Pablo Escobar. They think Narcos. They think danger.

Here's the reality. The Colombia of the early 1990s no longer exists. The transformation has been massive.

Bogotá has a lower murder rate than many US cities and other worldwide megacities. Homicides in Colombia dropped by 3.9 percent in 2024 compared to the previous year. That's 239 fewer deaths nationwide.

I've spent time in both Medellín and Bogotá. The vibe in these cities is nothing like what Americans imagine. Digital nomads have flooded in over the past few years precisely because the reality on the ground doesn't match the reputation.

Yes, organized crime still exists in specific regions, mostly far from tourist areas. But tourists aren't the targets. The violence that does occur is concentrated in areas where visitors never go.

Compare this to walking through certain neighborhoods in Chicago, Philadelphia, or Memphis at night. The statistical risk is actually higher in those American cities.

The colonial architecture, incredible food scene, and vibrant culture in Colombian cities are world-class. Yet most Americans write off the entire country based on outdated fears.

2) Mexico City, Mexico

Mexico takes a beating in American media. Every cartel incident makes international headlines. Every crime gets amplified. The country is massive, roughly the size of Western Europe, yet we treat it as one monolithic danger zone.

The numbers don't support this narrative at all.

Mexico City's homicide rate in 2023 was 7 per 100,000 residents. That's down from 15 per 100,000 in 2016. Houston sits at 19 per 100,000. Chicago is at 24 per 100,000.

Let that sink in. Mexico's capital has a lower murder rate than major American cities that people visit for business conferences and family vacations without thinking twice.

Yes, cartel violence exists in Mexico. But it's highly concentrated in specific border regions and rural areas. The cartel-on-cartel violence rarely touches tourists. Out of the 35 million foreign visitors Mexico receives annually, an incredibly tiny fraction experiences any crime.

I've walked through Mexico City neighborhoods at all hours. I've taken the metro late at night. I've explored markets in areas tourists supposedly shouldn't visit. The paranoia Americans carry simply doesn't match what you experience on the ground.

The media creates a feedback loop where perception becomes reality in people's minds, regardless of what the actual statistics show. A single dramatic incident dominates headlines for weeks while thousands of safe visits go completely unreported because safety isn't newsworthy.

3) Cancún and resort areas, Mexico

I'm separating this from Mexico City because people treat tourist destinations differently in their minds.

Cancún gets a particularly bad rap. Headlines scream about violence in tourist areas. Spring breakers hear warnings. Families second-guess their resort vacations.

Cancún's homicide rate in 2024 was 69.4 per 100,000. That sounds high until you realize St. Louis has the exact same rate. And most violence in Cancún is local in nature with tourists rarely involved.

Resort areas have robust security precisely because tourism is the economic lifeline. Hotels employ guards. Police patrol beaches and historical sites. Communities depend on that tourism revenue and protect it accordingly.

You're statistically safer in Playa del Carmen than in Oakland. Safer in Tulum than in Kansas City. Yet Americans cancel trips to Mexico while planning visits to American cities with objectively higher crime rates.

The gap between perception and reality costs these destinations billions in potential tourism revenue while depriving travelers of incredible experiences.

4) Cape Town and tourist areas, South Africa

South Africa's reputation as dangerous isn't entirely unfounded. South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in the world. Nearly 13,000 people were murdered in the first half of 2024 alone.

But here's what matters for travelers. That violence is concentrated in specific townships and areas with zero tourism infrastructure. Gang violence drives most murder statistics, and it remains in neighborhoods tourists never visit.

The tourist experience differs vastly from the statistical reality affecting local communities. Visitors staying in Cape Town's Waterfront, the wine regions of Stellenbosch, or safari lodges in Kruger face minimal risk when following standard safety protocols.

I know people who've spent months in Cape Town and felt safer than they did in parts of Los Angeles or Atlanta. The tourism industry operates with serious security infrastructure because international visitors represent such a crucial economic driver.

Is it a tragedy for residents living in high-crime areas? Absolutely. But that danger doesn't translate uniformly across all neighborhoods and experiences. Tourist areas in supposedly dangerous countries often have better security than equivalent neighborhoods in supposedly safe nations.

Compare the controlled environments of South African tourist destinations to walking alone in downtown Memphis or parts of Baltimore at night. The actual risk calculation might surprise you.

5) Cairo, Egypt

Egypt suffers from guilt by geographic association. Positioned in a volatile region, it gets lumped into broader Middle Eastern instability narratives.

The reality is more nuanced. Cairo and major tourist sites have extensive security measures. Tourist areas are heavily policed. The sites that draw international visitors, from the pyramids to Luxor, operate with significant protective infrastructure.

Yes, Egypt has experienced political instability. Yes, terrorism is a concern in certain regions, particularly in the Sinai Peninsula. But tourists visiting Cairo, Alexandria, or taking Nile cruises face relatively low risk with standard precautions.

The Egyptian government knows tourism is vital to the economy. That translates into visible security at historical sites and hotels. Guards at major attractions. Police presence in tourist neighborhoods.

Compare this to the lack of security in many American tourist areas. Times Square during peak hours. Bourbon Street late at night. Popular beaches in Miami. These places have far less visible security than major Egyptian tourist sites.

Americans avoid Egypt based on regional headlines that have little to do with the actual tourist experience on the ground.

6) Cartagena, Colombia

I'm separating Cartagena from other Colombian cities because it deserves special mention as a tourist destination that Americans frequently write off.

This coastal city has transformed into one of South America's premier vacation spots. The historic center is stunning. The food scene rivals anywhere in Latin America. The beaches are incredible.

Yet people still say "isn't Colombia dangerous?" when you mention traveling there.

Cartagena has become a digital nomad hotspot and backpacker favorite precisely because the reality on the ground doesn't match the reputation. Crime that does occur tends to be petty theft, pickpocketing, the same stuff you'd encounter in any major tourist destination worldwide. Violent crime against tourists is rare.

The walled city stays busy until late at night. People walk around freely. Outdoor dining fills the streets. Families vacation there. It doesn't feel remotely dangerous.

Compare this to tourist areas in cities like New Orleans, San Francisco, or Washington DC, where you need to be genuinely careful about which neighborhoods you wander into after dark. Cartagena's tourist zone is more consistently safe than many American counterparts.

Finally, Querétaro, Mexico offers a compelling example. This central Mexican city has become a digital nomad hotspot and expat favorite precisely because it combines culture, affordability, and genuine safety. Yet Americans who've never been there assume it's dangerous simply because it's in Mexico.

7) Lisbon, Portugal

Wait, you might be thinking. Lisbon isn't considered dangerous at all.

You'd be surprised. I've met Americans who express concern about traveling anywhere in Southern Europe. The economic crisis years created lingering perceptions about safety that don't match current reality.

Portugal as a whole has a homicide rate around 0.6 per 100,000 people. That's lower than the US national average and drastically lower than cities like Chicago, Cleveland, or Miami.

During my time exploring Lisbon, I wandered through neighborhoods at all hours and never felt unsafe. The narrow streets of Alfama late at night felt more secure than walking through downtown Austin where I live now.

Portuguese culture emphasizes family, community, and hospitality. There's a warmth that translates into how people treat both visitors and each other. Violent crime against tourists is exceptionally rare.

Yes, pickpocketing exists in tourist areas. But that's true in Paris, Barcelona, Rome, and literally every major European tourist destination. It's also true in New York, San Francisco, and Las Vegas.

The baseline level of violent crime risk in Lisbon sits far below comparable American cities. You can actually relax and enjoy yourself without that low-level anxiety that comes from being in genuinely dangerous areas.

The bottom line

Our perception of danger rarely aligns with statistical reality. We fear the unfamiliar while accepting risks in familiar environments because they feel normal.

During my three years living in Bangkok, I felt safer wandering night markets at midnight than I ever did in certain Boston neighborhoods where I grew up. The actual risk versus perceived risk were completely inverted.

This isn't about bashing America or pretending other countries don't have problems. Every place has issues. Every city has crime. But if safety is genuinely your concern, the data shows you're often safer in destinations Americans avoid than in cities we visit without hesitation.

The media creates and perpetuates these narratives. Netflix shows set in Colombia decades ago shape current perceptions. Every cartel shooting in Mexico makes international news while thousands of American homicides barely register. The psychology of fear means we remember dramatic stories while ignoring statistical reality.

So next time someone warns you about traveling somewhere foreign, check the actual numbers. Compare homicide rates. Look at where tourists actually experience crime versus where locals do. Consider that tourist areas in supposedly dangerous countries often have better security than American equivalents.

The world is generally safer than we think. And missing out on incredible experiences because of outdated fears or media-driven narratives means we're the ones losing out.