It also ignores tourist, which attacks crime but also mostly very "minor" crime stuff(in places with dynamics like London).

Then it ignores that in areas with larger amount of major crimes (like homicide) minors crimes with limited damages tend to be notoriously under-reported. Like if you police can't even resolve many homicide cases why bother reporting some pick pocketing?

Londons homicide rate 2025 is ~1.1 per 100,000 (97 homicides, with a population around ~9.0M)

Chicago is at 14.6~15 per 100.000 (411~417 homicides depending on source and if you count e.g. homicide in self defense, and ~2.7M population but also estimates differ in the 100_000s)

Chicago has a homicide rate of 2025 is at 14.6 homicides per 100,000.

So no Chicago isn't saver then London at all.

Like think about it it has over 4x the total number of homicides while having less then a third the population.

And sure homicides aren't all what matters, but given previous mentioned issues like minor crime often going unreported in very dangerous areas its a good point to get started with as it puts out a good "worst case bottom line".

What you post is a good example is how by over simplifying statistics you can trivially abuse "facts" to convey a completely wrong meaning.