"However, the USA also experienced a drop in homicides over the same period with no such draconian law. The Assault Weapon Law passed in 1993 simply stopped the manufacture for civilians of these firearms but allowed for their possession by those who had them prior to the law. The AWB law sunsetted in 2004." gary_overman » Mon Feb 8 2016 03:58:38
The only difference between an "Assault Weapon" and a rifle is merely cosmetic add-on which does little to affect it's killing potentials. Yes an Assault weapon can fire more rounds, but a rifle can shot a much more deadly rounds than an AR-15 or a Bushmaster.
U.S. homicide rates are dropping because of the way crimes are statically counted, plus less crimes are reported. And the advancement in emergency medical intervention.
Someone has to die before it's considered homicide.
Perhaps the advancement in emergency medical care is a factor because , like you point out, there has to be a death in order for it to be called a homicide.
However, I seriously doubt that the homicides that do occur are being under-reported. This might have been the case many years ago, but the advances in forensic science makes it hard to hide murder. Not impossible, of course, but hard.
Still, my point was that the gun-control advocates gave the 1997 law in Australia credit for that country's drop in homicides. However, even without a similar or even a much less drastic law, there was also a corresponding drop in the USA that they have to account for. Yet this question is seldom asked of those who advocate strict Aussie-style gun-laws in the USA, let alone answered.
In short, while I concede advances in emergency care as a definite factor in reducing the homicide rates, I doubt that the homicides that do occur are being under-reported. A few, perhaps, but not that many.
reply
share