Yeah, the framing you need to have to understand the comment is dark. How is one to "know" that one ought not to do this, unless the facts about cultural behavior are communicated? Yet those facts themselves, about regions and risks, are extremely contentious. It doesn't seem fair to have it both ways - either every group should be free to move to, try to make a life, do business an lots of US regions without worrying much, or we should spread stereotypes and warnings about how groups are likely to behave, which would look a lot like racism.

The points about not knowing anybody are fair, but still, the obvious implication is that the comment, while coming from the left, is also suggesting that the MC should have privately been told the racial realities of that area. But the right to speak about that, too, is under attack. Is it or is it not okay to mention that majority black, southern, low income towns are likely to be extremely dangerous, and that poverty is a proxy for it, but that other methods of stereotyping are likely even more effective?

Does it even matter? It has to be part of the risk assessment either way.

Or does getting shot hurt more or less depending on the interior disposition of the shooter?