That means it doesn't matter what the gun likes like. Plenty of people use an AR-15 to hunt with, as it is a light efficient hunting tool.
The rub comes with capacity. I agree that bump stocks and high capacity magazines are not necessary both for the safety hunting and reduction of damage in an event like this school shooting. Yet, one person killed is one too many and seventeen killed is seventeen too many. That takes us back to the person.
We have a long list of people not able to own a gun. The reasons are because they are felons and have lost the 'right' to own a firearm, and for mental health reasons that get documented and because of being a potential threat like a restraining order for a few.
The problem lies, not with the gun or its type, but the access to guns legally and illegally. There is a big black market for illegal guns. The reason is that felons mostly can't get a gun any other way. There is also an undocumented source of guns not tracked and that is guns handed down and across family members and friends as gifts or simply loaned. And then, there are thousands of guns stolen from homes and cars. Those are certainly in the hands of criminals and if the thieves don't use them they sell them to bad people that do.
We can't get a handle on opioids that kill more people in a week than one of these school shootings. The difference is the addicts' simple pass away quietly in a corner somewhere. Too bad, so sad. Moving on. But let someone shoot someone with a gun and the sky is falling. Well, hell the sky has fallen for the poor person shot. I got off point there a little. Point is opioids aren't even protected by the constitution like guns. Meaning we have way more control how to handle drugs killing people than we do people with guns and we don't.
We as a people are smart. There are guys that can set a Volkswagen size space vehicle on an asteroid traveling at thousands of feet per second millions of miles away and send back pictures of it. So, why don't we put some thought into how to control the 'access' to guns.
If I want an AR-15 to hang on my wall because that was the type of gun I used in Vietnam then there is no one to say I can't. But, were I to start posting online how much I want to shot up the town with it, then it's all bets off and I should be blackballed and have it taken away from me if I already have one. That's reasonable. If my doctors say I'm psychotic and enters me into a database that says "Don't give this nut a gun", then I shouldn't have one until I can appeal with more evaluation from more doctors or don't ever get a gun, period.
Why is there so much push back from the right on these emotional knee-jerk declarations from the left? It is just because of the tone. Ban guns, ban types of guns - it's always the gun. Perhaps a person ought not to have an AR-15, but it isn't because of the type of gun, it's because of the person that has or wants it. I think a lot more progress can be made on controlling guns if the focus goes to the problem of the people getting these guns and forget about the gun. As I said before it is reasonable to sensibly restrict peripheral stuff like bump stocks and high capacity magazines. There is no difference in shooting a Browning 30 caliber deer rifle and an M1, except for the look.
So, let's all take a deep breath and turn our attention to the root of the problem, people. How do we keep people that shouldn't have a gun from getting one? There is where our ire needs to be directed.