Those numbers don’t make white or black people more dangerous.
You’re seeing or imagining things that do not exist.
The vast majority of violent crime in this country is committed within the races not against the other races.
“ The vast majority of violent crime in this country is committed within the races not against the other races.”
**************************************************************
True that but I’d suggest that you look at the interracial violent crime statistics (e.g., black perp-white victim and white perp- black victim) you’ll see that it’s mostly a one-way street. And adjusting violent crimes conducted to a per capita basis will CLEARLY show a great disparity between races. Just sayin’.
“The vast majority of violent crime in this country is committed within the races not against the other races.”
I think you’re lacking some basic information:
“Although violent crime by white offenders is apparently strongly intraracial, in that 96.9 percent of the white offenders chose white victims, violent crime by black offenders is apparently predominantly interracial, with 55.2 percent of the black offenders choosing white victims. Black offenders chose white victims in 63.9 percent of robberies, 51.8 percent of assaults, and 58.6 percent of rapes. In contrast, white offenders chose black victims in 8.3 percent of robberies, 2.7 percent of assaults, and 5.5 percent of rapes.”
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/violent-crime-intraracial
Please note that this study is from 1985.
Yes, they do. If a black is twice as likely as a white person to commit a crime, you’d have to meet twice as many whites as blacks to meet the same number of criminals. If there’s more than twice as many whites as blacks, then you’ll meet more white criminals. And vice versa. Rate and total quantity are different measurements.
Even if the majority or crime is intra-colored, that doesn’t mean any particular individual is more or loss dangerous, without knowing more information. Like rate and quantity.