Yes, the AR15 has been used in many mass shootings (4 or more victims). And if they get banned, we may see a 30 rd Remington hunting rifle could used with similar effect. So gun proponents would worry it would be next on the hit list (a continuing erosion of their guns rights). But the AR platform is super customizable for different applications, unlike a standard hunting rifle. They are definitely different. They are also the same, in that all guns are dangerous and can be used to kill humans. Any semi-auto could do similar damage. Even a .22. The .223 round has high velocity, but is a very small round. A +P or +P+ 9mm hollow point pistol round would be more devastating.
While mass shootings are all over the national media, handgun deaths (without looking up the actual stats) account for the lion share of shooting deaths in this country by a LARGE margin (not Large Marge). More concealable, etc, and the ammunition has become even deadlier with new technologies. Again, another big mountain to climb to ban semi-auto handguns (likely won't ever happen), but they cause many more deaths.
GOP Sen. Kennedy compared these shootings to drunk driving a few days ago (saying you don't get rid of sober drivers when drunk driving is a problem). Not the best analogy and he received a lot of media backlash. However, I do agree that if the goal is to save lives, we should look at all avenues (not Kennedy's point), and shore up laws that can save laws (drunk driving laws in most states are quite lax). But with gun control, mass shootings and deaths from AR15/"assault rifles" account for a miniscule amount of the total gun deaths each year, but they are sensationalized by politicians and the media, and are the focus of gun control. It is ludicrous. Yes, they are a problem. Yes, we should do something, but the focus should be on handguns. Mass shootings are limited to four or more deaths, if you move that number to 3, the number rises by a gigantic margin, and most are attributable to handguns.
So I will Agree with Kennedy, that we should treat guns like alcohol. I also agree we need to crack down on drunk driving, which has impacted many of my friends and family. If you leave your liquor cabinet unlocked and your kids and their friends get drunk and kill someone, you will be held responsible. The same should apply consistently with guns. Keep them secure, or face legal consequences. Sell to someone who is ineligible (think minor for alcohol), face consequences.
Even with a total AR ban, do we take guns away or just prevent future purchases? Are those purchases limited to new manufactured guns or used market too? Will it be a taking to not allow someone to sell their own property? What will the cost be to collect 20mm+ guns in this country? How many people will fight and kill to keep their guns? Would it be constitutional to ban a gun someone already owns?
It may seem like I am anti-gun. I am not. I am anti-politician (both sides). I get sick of the same disingenuous arguments on both sides. However, I am a proponent for additional background checks (state checks should be done along with federal background checks for every purchase, even private sales). I'm not sure if magazine limitations will do anything, or if an AR ban would either, other than focus the discussion on the "next gun up".
A well functioning society should focus on finding the root cause of violence and focus on it along with other protective measures. It is a less of a "hot-button" political issue, that both parties should get behind. Mental health, drug use and homelessness are big problems. Start there, and keep the process moving to make gun ownership smarter, and move the chains within the realm of what the 2nd Amendment allows. At some point, we may have enough votes to amend the 2nd amendment, until then, let's be logical and move the yardstick where we can.