Interracial Rape Statistics

I have been trying to find what the statistics say on inter-racial rape for quite some time. It is very difficult, probably because most people know what the results will show.

Today I found an article from a University of Chicago paper from 1982 that summarized some previous studies on the amount of interracial rape, that is, black on white rape, or white on black rape. The article is called:

Gary D. LaFree, “Male Power and Female Victimization: Toward a Theory of Interracial Rape,” American Journal of Sociology 88, no. 2 (Sep., 1982): 311-328.

Each of the rows in the above table is a reference to a study measuring the amount of inter-racial rape, and the results of those studies. The Table is titled: “Table 1 Frequency of Interracial Rape By Year of Offense”, from Pg. 313 of the LaFree Article.

The figures are about like what I suspected. That is, the rates of black men raping white women were much higher than the rates of white men raping black women. One study in particular, was astounding to me. The fourth row down is a sample taken in Berkley, California, where it was found that 60.8% of all rapes were a black offender and white victim, from 1968 to 1970.

The article is also interesting because it accepts the fact that black men are raping white women at much higher rates as a given, and then presents two possible theories for why that would be. That suggests to me that, at least in 1982, the fact that black men raped white women at an unusually high level was a known fact, that nobody questioned.

Parenthetically, the two theories presented in the LaFree article are the “normative” theory, and the “conflict” theory. The “normative theory suggests that the amount of black on white rape had gone up since the time of desegregation because more white women were interacting with black men socially, creating greater opportunities for rape. The “conflict” theory suggested that black men rape white women more frequently as a form of revenge for supposed “white male power”. The article finds that the “conflict” theory is more supported by its findings.

I had to pay ten dollars for the article, which I found here: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu. I consider it worth the $10.

From there, I found another article that appears to be freely available online:

“The Racial Pattering of Rape”, South, Scott J., Felson, Richard B., University of North Carolina Press, “Social Forces”, September 1990, 69(1):71-93.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=635F7907F6F07771D7C4D815160167BC?doi=10.1.1.839.5948&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This article posits another theory for the much higher rate of black on white rape than white on black rape. It seems to say that it is due to increased opportunity of black rapists to rape white women in a less racially segregated society than in the past. The article notes that cities with higher rates of racial segregation have less black on white rape. This seems plausible to me, and suggests a definite solution for avoiding becoming the victim of a crime…but I’ll leave that for another time.

“Beto” likes guns just fine…when HE decides who to use them on

At the recent Democratic Debates, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke attempted to demonstrate his “no compromise” attitude on guns by saying: “Hell Yes, We’re Going To Take Your AR-15”

https://reason.com/2019/09/12/beto-orourke-hell-yes-were-going-to-take-your-ar-15/

What it demonstrated was his willingness to have the state initiate physical force.

He does not mean: “Hell yes, if you are a force-initiator, we’re going to take away your AR-15”

This could easily be done with a law that says: “It shall be unlawful to possess an AR-15 with the intent to commit a felony.”

But, this wouldn’t accomplish what O’Rourke wants, since most owners of AR-15’s would continue to legally hold them. The government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had the weapon for the purpose of committing a felony, which most AR-15 owners would never do.

What O’Rourke wants is to remove this type of weapon from general circulation in the civilian world as a “prophylactic measure”. In other words, he thinks that by doing this, the number of murders in America will decrease. Never mind that the number of murders committee with so-called “assault weapons” is much smaller than the number of murders committed with handguns. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

So, what O’Rourke is actually saying is: “Hell yes, we are going to use the power of state force to deprive you of your property, even if you keep it for self-defense.”

In other words, he is saying: “The state can use physical force to deprive you of your values, and if you attempt to resist, the police will come to your house and attempt to arrest you. If you resist, you will be shot by the State.”

“Beto” wants to use the guns of government to kill anyone who wants to live.