What caused you to hallucinate such a broad blanket statement? The point is the memory unsafety issues they ran into would be categorically impossible in safe Rust, which is why they're doing this in the first place.
Yes, obviously you can write high-quality software in Zig. But does Zig categorically reject the kind of bugs Bun was suffering from? Rust does.
In short, I'm accusing you of doing a motte-and-bailey.
I am less motte-and-bailey'ing, and you are more not subscribing to the principal of charity, choosing to interpret the original comment as its weakest possible version rather than the strongest.
Now C does have some aspects which make it more prone to crashes and memory bugs. The less strong statement of "using C results in a higher propensity for crashes/memory bugs than Rust" is absolutely true, I would argue. And both C++ and Rust inherit some (but not all, and not the same) of the aspects which make C prone to memory bugs. (So does Go, I would argue, but less than C++ and Zig.)
One of the reasons WebSQL died was due to how many memory bug related vulnerabilities SQLite had.