Sure, criminals still use them, but the rate is so low i couldnt even find a crime rate number on them. Only once in a blue moon do we hear about bombing attempts(bridges in Ohio from anarchists awhile back....that the Feds were watching for and snatched them up...and people immediately cried out as entrapment ), but thats no where near the number of violent incidents with assault rifles. Keep in mind, its not exactly difficult to acquire the materials needed to build a bomb, you basically have to visit a store like walmart. If anything, that ban proves that adjusting the law works.
Not to mention how other nations have introduced bans that werent laughably inept and the crime rate fell(only in America can you ban assault rifles but let people continue to sell them).
Would it be possible to tighten the law? In theory, yes. Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners.
As Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff pointed out, Australia’s law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journalwrite that the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”
Still, an Australia-style ban would face much more difficult hurdles in this country. For starters, there are more than 200 million guns in circulation in the United States, making a buyback much more costly. And a full ban would likely face heavier resistance here, both from the courts and the public. Even Feinstein has promised that her new version of the assault weapons ban would still “exempt over 900 specific weapons.” Gun-control advocates aren’t quite ready to propose overly sweeping measures.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-one-post/What did the 1994 ban actually do? For the 10 years that the ban was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture the assault weapons described above for use by private citizens. The law also set a limit on high-capacity magazines — these could now carry no more than 10 bullets.
There was, however, an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands.
And yes yes yes, before anyone snaps: i understand Australia isnt 'Merica! Gotcha.
I just debated this issue through 30 pages in the other thread, so someone else can pick it up here(and Gonzo made alot of good points in his post) but even if the crime rate didnt fall, the casualty numbers would. Had these sinister bastards been forced to find other means, it would have given law enforcement more time to stop them(especially if they were going after banned items such as explosives or...assault rifles). If they resorted to less dangerous items such as knives, 20 families wouldnt be burying their children. Even if the crime rate stays exactly the same but the casualty figures drop: that will be good enough for me.
This conversation assumes that every single crime in America is premeditated and not committed in the "heat of the moment".