I don't understand why some people cling to their right to own weapons that are best suited to military or police purposes despite the fact that this right has significant negative effects on the whole of society.
Because many of us who own guns don't hunt. Our reasons for owning guns are political. (FWIW, I haven't even fired any of mine since early in the Clinton administration.)
My objection to the AR-15 isn't that a single shot from it is really deadly (personally I wouldn't use it to hunt hogs because I'd want more stopping power). It's mostly that it has high capacity magazines, a little that it can relatively easily be converted to fire pseudo-fully-automatic, and a little that its design is very suitable for urban combat.
It's easy to make magazines for just about any rifle that's not bolt action, and (as I noted earlier) you can just get a bunch of 10-round (or whatever) clips which can be swapped in seconds. So this is just a feel-good act that would have no real effect on anyone that was seriously interested in killing people.
It's likewise fairly easy to convert most rifles (other than bolt action) to full auto. Heck, building your own isn't exactly rocket science, and is well within the capability of anyone with access to a decent machine shop.
You are right about the urban (and jungle) combat aspect of the AR-15/M-16, which is why I wouldn't use it as a hunting weapon (if I hunted). But as above, lots of us don't own guns for hunting purposes.
It's everything to do with how effective a given weapon can be if someone decides they want to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.
But if someone decides they really want to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, they wouldn't use a gun. Just for instance, here are the largest (non-government) mass killings in US history, none of which were commited with guns:
9/11 – 2977 victims, box cutters and aircraft.
Jonestown Massacre – 909 victims, cyanide. (I include this because the perpetrator & victims were all Americans, even though it didn't happen in the US)
EgyptAir Flight 990 – 215 victims, intentional aircraft crash.
Oklahoma City Federal building – 168 victims, fertilizer bomb.
Happy Land Fire - 87 victims, arson.
For comparison, the largest US mass shooting I can find (the Virginia Tech incident) claimed only 32 victims. Which (unless you're into believing that guns cause people to kill) suggests that we might limit the death toll from such spree killers by giving them ready access to guns, so they won't use more deadly means.
But you know, it's just super that you think ad hominem attacks are the best way to discredit someone you disagree with.
You really should look up the definition of an ad hominem attack. Telling you that you're wrong about something is not one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem