Here we go again with trying to make the number seem bigger.
It's 3 murders per 100,000 people. No, that isn't a lot to me. I'm completely fine and feel safe knowing I have a 0.000036 percent chance of being murdered next year.
Without an answer, I'll go back to your "Ask an Arab around Paris how safe they feel".
The 2012 homicide rate in Paris is 1.8 / 100,000, according to the "Homicide counts and rates in the most populous city, time series 2005-2012" spreadsheet available from linked from http://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html . The total count was 41, so an overall population of 2.2 million.
To confirm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Paris says "The city of Paris (also called the Commune or Department of Paris) had a population of 2,241,346 people within its administrative city limits as of January 1, 2014".
It's hard to know the ethic breakdown of everyone who was murdered. That last URL says there are 436,576 immigrants in the city of Paris. I'll assume 2/3rds of those are Arabs, based on the '2011 Census Paris Region; Country/territory of birth' chart from that page, and assume that there are no non-Arab homicides. This is, of course, going to give a very high number compared to the actual number:
That gives a homicide rate of 41 / (436576*2/3) = 14/100,000, compared to Montana's 3.6.
This absurd number is still less than 4x of homicide rate in Montana.
Under your logic, an Arab in Paris should not feel unsafe due to threat of being murdered.
Why should we think that Montana is safer for you than Paris is for an Arab?
No, my implication was not to connect Montana and a Parisian of Arab descent. The implication is that safety is a feeling and relative. There's context to it, your upbringing, your race, your economic status, the amount of attention your mother gave you, whatever.
I'm not interested in coming to some conclusion that X is safer than Y. So far you're the only one I've seen struggling to understand this.
We interpret statistics differently.