With all due respect, I disagree. What the evidence lays bare is that there is a massive difference in what individual members/collective groups of society interpret as a threat, and thereby find worthy of attempts to mitigate. It also stands that until recently, violence had been on a downward trend.
On the collective front for example, the anti-arms crowd sees a citizen exercising a right as a threat. The pro-arms side sees the anti-arms's willingness to engage in rhetoric to dismantle a fundamental right as a threat to the overall underpinnings of civil society. The pro-arms is not innately threatened by the bearing of arms, or refusal to do so, but by enforced asymmetric eligibility to bear arms without a darn good reason. This is the basic blueprint for any major X/!X or an X/!(X&&Y) divide [I think I got the truth table right there].
On the individual front, things get even more diverse.
A gang member sees a rival gang member on his turf as a threat, but the "civie" right next to them sees neither as a threat until the violence starts, and they have no defense.
A harassed/abused/ostracized child generalized the infliction of suffering by members of their peer group to the rest of humanity, making everyone a threat.
An oppressed/marginalized population feels threatened by their oppressors.
A previously oppressed/marginalized populations feels threatened by their previous oppressors
That's what I mean by there is no positive "agency" or "essence" to the "freedom to be safe". The state of safety is accidental to the circumstance. As long as there is an agent willing to break any civil consensus in such a way as to cause harm, the best move is for everyone to possess the most effective means of causing harm, but to refrain from employing it. This protects and perpetuates civil society, without creating "soft target" situations where no resistance can be offered to a violator of the peace.
I respect your right to the view that there is some positive existence to the freedom to be safe. However, at most I'll acknowledge the legitimacy of a claim to the right to live a life in the pursuit of Safety to be semantically and grammatically capable of bearing significance and recognizable meaning; in parity with the recognition of the purpose of a government to secure for its' People the right to Life, Liberty. and the pursuit of Happiness as proscribed to in the United States.
Pursue, by all means, but finding/catching it is far from guaranteed, and depriving others of what brings them Safety will inevitably set the stage for violent conflict, even when done through civil means.
However, I digress, and fear this interesting diversion may have long overstayed it's welcome, and it certainly was not my intent to turn this thread so far off topic. I just had a moment of clarity enabling me to formulate an articulation of an observation that has hitherto resisted my attempts to elucidate.