A recent Elon University poll found that 61% of North Carolinians feel unsafe in crowded outdoor areas as well as feel unsafe when crime drops. Nearly half expressed concerns about school safety. Another 68% expect political violence to worsen over the next year.
These aren’t fringe anxieties. They’re mainstream concerns shared by hundreds of thousands of people.
But here’s what makes this interesting.
FBI data released in August 2025 confirmed that 2024 recorded the lowest violent crime rate in the United States since 1969. Property crime hit historic lows, too.
We have a situation where people feel unsafe when crime drops, even though they are actually safer than they’ve been in over fifty years.
The disconnect isn’t accidental.
What Creates the Gap
Media coverage amplifies dramatic incidents while ignoring statistical trends. A single high-profile event generates more emotional weight than a year of declining crime rates. Our brains evolved to remember threats, not their absence.
This creates what I call threat inflation. The perception of danger grows even as the reality of danger shrinks.
You see this pattern everywhere right now. National Guard deployments in multiple cities despite crime data showing improvement. Political rhetoric treating urban areas as war zones when they’re statistically safer than suburban communities were in the 1990s.
The poll surveyed 800 adults between September 23 and October 1. That timing matters. It followed several widely publicized violent incidents that dominated news cycles and social media feeds.
The Market Tells a Different Story
While public anxiety rises, executive protection spending reveals something more nuanced.
Median spending on executive protection surged from $43,068 in 2021 to $94,276 in 2024. That’s a 118.9% increase in three years.
But this spending isn’t driven by random fear. It’s a strategic response to specific, identifiable threats that have nothing to do with street crime statistics.
Corporate executives face targeted risks that don’t show up in FBI violent crime data. Doxxing, swatting, coordinated harassment campaigns, reputational attacks that spill into physical security concerns. These threats operate in a different category entirely.
What Elite Security Actually Focuses On
The firms serving high-profile clients aren’t reacting to crime statistics. They’re assessing threat landscapes that most people never encounter.
A CEO’s risk profile includes factors like public visibility, controversial business decisions, wealth signals, and predictable movement patterns. None of these correlates with whether violent crime in their city went up or down last quarter.
This explains why executive protection spending climbs while crime falls. The threats being addressed exist alongside traditional crime metrics.
When agencies like Global Risk Solutions conduct threat assessments, they’re not looking at local police reports. They’re analyzing social media monitoring, travel exposure, event security requirements, and potential adversary capabilities.
Mena Ghali, Chief Executive Officer of Global Risk Solutions, Inc., sees this disconnect play out daily. “The general public reacts to headlines. Our clients need to understand actual threat vectors,” he explains. “When someone asks about safety in crowded spaces, we’re asking different questions. Who knows your schedule? What’s your digital footprint? Who has the motivation to target you specifically?”
His background in intelligence and surveillance shapes how the agency approaches risk. “Crime statistics tell you about random violence. They don’t tell you about planned, targeted actions. Those operate on completely different timelines and require completely different responses.”
The Real Question
The Elon poll captures genuine anxiety. People feel what they feel, and those feelings drive fundamental behavioral changes. Avoiding public spaces, limiting activities, and changing travel patterns are necessary.
But feelings divorced from accurate threat assessment create their own problems.
You can’t effectively protect what you don’t accurately understand. If your security decisions are based on media-amplified perception rather than actual risk factors, you’re likely over-protecting in some areas while remaining vulnerable in others.
61% of North Carolinians who feel unsafe in crowds aren’t wrong to think about security. They’re thinking about the wrong security questions.
The question isn’t whether crime exists. It’s whether the specific threats you face require particular responses, or whether you’re reacting to ambient anxiety that serves no protective function.
Ghali puts it more directly. “Security without accurate threat assessment is just expensive theater. You feel safer, but you’re not actually more protected. Sometimes you’re less protected because you’re focused on the wrong risks.”
That distinction matters more than any poll number.
