Originally Posted by Direckshun
There are a whole lot of reasons why crime can and should stay low, even with the decline of baby boomers in the population. But that's another thread.
You've already made this argument. I've already rebutted it.
You haven't rebutted anything. You haven't explained why the rate of decline of violence against women was not increased by VAWA. We have a trend that shows that Violence against women would have decreased to current levels without VAWA.
Violent crime against women was following the trend that all violent crime was following. Why do you think that it would've stopped following that trend? You have to believe that the trend in violent crime rates against women would've been an anomaly, compared to all other violent crime rates, in order to believe that the VAWA was effective. Otherwise violence against women decreased for the same reason all other violent crime rates decreased.
If violent crime rates against women would have decreased more dramatically than all other violent crime, you might have an argument, but it didn't.