This has actually turned into an odd conversation where things have become a little muddled (between the different commentators) so it is becoming a little difficult to articulate a proper response to all, but I will try.
I agree that culture is a major factor in violent crime rates, but it is also just one of many factors.
A lot of what is being said here is actually very interesting and I am not fully against it (actually agree with a lot of it). Of course some of it I also think is complete nonsense, like blaming globalization for Americas problems with gun culture...
Ant131531 for example made a great point about the brain drain problem, where those who are naturally gifted in poor nations / areas are generally absorbed into wealthy more stable societies, creating a positive feedback loop that keeps poorer nations / areas remaining poor and unstable.
My biggest gripe though (and maybe this was not articulated well enough in my other posts) is the idea that certain populations of people are GENETICALLY more violent than others. This is NONSENSE IMO. And trust me, I am not PC or an SJW (one only has to follow my commentary on other threads to know this), but this is very dangerous thinking.
Think of a controlled experiment, you take 1000 newborns from Africa, 1000 newborns from Europe, and 1000 newborns from Asia. None of these children are given any cultural / social information about their heritage / culture. They are all raised together separate from society with the same education. I am willing to bet my life that being raised from a clean slate that incidents of violence and average IQ would be the same among all 3 groups. Therefore, different groups of people are not generically predisposed to be more violent or to have a higher IQ.
If you actually do believe that in such a scenario that the 1000 black children would grow up to have a higher rate of violence and a lower IQ than their European and East Asian counterparts, then you are racist, simple as that.
And sorry, discounting war time aggression because it is "group" and "organized" is a huge cop-out. Both Japan and Germany for example were the aggressors, they were not simply defending themselves (fighting a war out of necessity). During the war Japanese soldiers for example killed Chinese and other civilians
en masse, not to mention the unnecessary violent rape of uncountable Chinese and Korean women. These are very violent actions. If Japanese were genetically less violent then there would not have been a thirst to go to war in the first place and there definitely would not have been mass murder and rape of civilians. Same goes for the Germans obviously. And the Chinese themselves during their revolutions and unification. Also interesting to note that Taiwan (which is essentially genetically the same as Eastern China) has a relatively high homicide rate. Try to explain that through DNA
I also feel that if you are going to discount war time aggression, then terrorist violence should also be discounted? It is group orientated, it is organized. So are gangs when you get down to it.