Inductivist

 Wilfred Reilly (@wil_da_beast630) has a discussion going on at Twitter about which race currently faces the most "systemic racism." Some people are assuming that Asians are victimized by blacks more than whites are. Two sources of data are not very helpful here: hate crimes and victimization data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Hate crimes are a tiny drop in the bucket of all violence, and you don't see NCVS tables with Asian victims by race of offender. (Let me know if I've missed them.) Victim data in general indicates that Asians face low levels of victimization, which makes sense because most crime is intra-racial, and Asians have very low rates of criminal offending. 

Perhaps homicide data is the best way to go here. I looked at expanded FBI homicide data and the Census to calculate rates for being murdered by a black person for two groups: 1) Whites/Hispanics, and 2) Asians/ Native Americans/Pacific Islanders. I'm afraid the FBI lumps people together that way. The rate for group 1 is 2.30 murders per 1 million population. For group 2, it's 1.44 murders per million. According to FBI data, blacks pose more of a threat to whites and Hispanics than Asians plus. 

It's hard to find good stats on racial differences in intimate partner violence since this is the kind of information that makes blacks look bad. One way around this problem is to focus on the easily available homicide victim statistics. We can learn about race and perpetrating domestic violence with victim stats for two reasons: 1) at least 90% of homicides are intra-racial (within a race) so if the victim is black, the perp is too. (And when crimes are interracial, they are more likely to be black-on-white than the reverse); and 2) if a woman is killed, it's usually by a man with whom she had some kind of relationship: a boyfriend, husband, ex, or on the rare occasion, a John.

The CDC has a great website for analyzing mortality data. I generated female homicide rates for race and Hispanic status:

2018 homicide victimization rates (per 100k)

Black  6.3
American Indian  4.4
Hispanic  1.9
White 1.8
Asian  1.0

So the victim rate for black women is 6.3 times that of Asian women,  and 3.5 times that of whites. While these racial gaps are large, they are not as big as those for men (39.0 for blacks and 3.7 for whites). The male-male dynamic--killing for vengeance or saving face--seems to separate blacks and others more than the intimate partner dynamic: the man kills the woman out of jealousy, a desire to get his way, or to punish the victim.

Author Philip Roth provides a good example of the how the Left feels about sex.  In his novels, he celebrates infidelity.  He loves it, and says that the man who invented faithfulness should never be forgiven.

He's probably not smart enough to see it, but he who loves cheating evidently loves murder, too, because infidelity is a major cause of homicide. The case of the murderous jealous partner is only too common.

Cheating and murder are problems for all populations, but they are particular problems among blacks.  The General Social Survey asked participants, "Have you ever had sex with someone other than your husband or wife while you were married?" Here are the percentages who answered yes (sample size = 20,205):

Men
Blacks  33.8
Whites  21.9
Relative risk  1.5

Women
Blacks  18.6
Whites  13.5
Relative risk 
Relative risk  1.4

So black men are 1.5 times more likely to cheat than white men; the black/white gap for women is similar.

The black homicide rate runs about 8 times that of whites, and some of this difference is due to greater infidelity among blacks. (The data here only addresses marriage, but I assume the racial difference in cheating between single blacks and whites is similar).

Do liberals secretly desire the destruction of blacks?  They've helped destroy the black family by subsidizing single motherhood, they favor abortion on demand which eliminates a much higher rate of black babies than whites, and they favor sexual deviance which encourages murder.

Using CIA data on race (admittedly crude), I calculated the Pearson correlation between percent black and national homicide rates. For 180 countries, it is .50--a strong association. More blacks means more homicide. Percent black is as predictive as mean IQ or the GINI measure of income inequality. While we're at it, the black-inequality correlation is .45. Bigger gaps between the wealthy and the poor go hand in hand with more blacks. 

Continuing my focus on cross-national homicide, I correlated rates with the percent of the population that is Muslim. For a sample of 181 countries, the correlation is -.17 which means that countries with more Muslims tend to have less murder. This is striking when one considers that Muslim-dominated countries tend to be poor and some of them are sub-Saharan African. After adjusting for per capita GDP and percent black, the correlation is likely to be stronger.

One note: I'm going to try to get a better idea of how relilable the homicide data are. I chose coroner's data over criminal justice data simply because I trust public health institutions more, and they tend to report more counts of homicide (suggesting that criminal justice agencies are not reporting some cases). The two systems seem to be pretty consistent in high-income countries, but just eyeballing the data, the counts from the two sources can be very different in poor countries. I suspect that politically-motivated killings in unstable countries complicate things.   

Using data from Richard Lynn and the recent WHO study, the correlation between national level IQ and the homicide rate across 181 countries is -.51. This is a strong association, so smarter countries are much less violent. The only cross-national correlate of homicide that is this strong is income inequality (more unequal countries are more violent). In my data set, the correlation between the GINI inequality index and homicide is .48.

UPDATE: Since I mentioned inequality, any thoughts on how to explain the correlation? The inequality-homicide link is reliable in macrolevel research. Sociologists claim that a large gap between the wealthy and the poor generates anger and resentment which low-status people take out on convenient, low-risk targets. It doesn't seem plausible to me that Bill Gates is an important cause of black-on-black ghetto violence. Compared to Europe, the US has a fairly high level of inequality, but racial diversity probably explains its inequality-homicide correlation. As for the cross-national link, is it that poorly endowed populations are both violent and unlikely to create more equal arrangements? I'll have to see how much the inequality-homicide link is reduced when adjusted for mean IQ.

Back to the US question: if American liberals are so concerned about large gaps between the wealthy and the poor, why would they invite large numbers of both Chinese and Mexican immigrants? At least the immigrants of a century ago were similar (with the exception of Jews).

I am currently putting together a large cross-national data set and will report interesting correlations. Let me begin with the relationship between civilian gun availability and homicide. I calculated the Pearson correlation between the two rates using data from the Small Arms Survey and WHO's recent study of homicide. For a sample of 181 countries, the correlation is -.25. That means that countries with more guns tend to have less lethal violence.

Gun ownership is strongly related to per capita GDP (.48). Countries with many guns like the United States (which is the world's leader with 88 firearms per 100 people) are typically wealthy. We Americans usually think of Europe as being practically gun free, but they have significantly higher levels than many poor countries. And two of the poorest regions are also the most violent--Latin America and especailly Sub-Saharan Africa. An African country might have less than one gun per 100 people, but that doesn't stop it from having a homicide rate many times the global average. I might get different results when I conduct a multivariate analysis--gun availability might lead to more violence when GDP is controlled, for example--but guns are not a serious enough factor to overwhelm more important causes of homicide.