You mean this type of guns?:
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-america-gun-culture-politics/?
PS> So far it appears to be mainly used to shoot each other, not “the enemy”.
Not very suitable for hunting groundhogs, or rabbits.
Wapo has another article about the AR-15 today.
For those who have access:
Not very pleasant reading, but maybe it should be compulsory for those who think “freedom” is being able to own one (or more).
The article ends with this reminder:
" You have been on this page for more than 11 minutes.
It took 11 minutes for the shooter to kill 60 people and injure 869 others at a Las Vegas concert".
I think you over-egged it a bit here.
The .223 Remington cartridge, by far the most common chambering for the AR15, is in fact a highly recommended and widely used cartridge for hunting groundhogs and other varmints. It’s usually considered too small for hogs and deer, although some people like it for deer.
And I’m quite confident that its use in target shooting, hunting and war exceeds that in criminal violence by orders of magnitude.
That is not in any way to defend “ammosexuals” or to say that the US does not have a huge problem or that “scary looking” weapons like the AR15 do not appeal to many folks for the wrong reasons.
For anyone interested in General Butler and the coup he was recruited for, to overthrow FDR and set up a fascist dictatorship in the USA:
there is a great multi-part podcast that just came about the whole story. Warning: while it is great history, it is couched in a comedic way. I like laughing while I get my history. Others might not share that sense of humor. But it is well-written.
OK maybe so.
Looking at what the .223 bullet do when fired from an AR-15 and hit a human body I don’t think there would be much eatable meat left of a rabbit, or even a small deer.
Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon for when hunting, or target shooting? Nobody fire back at you, so ample time to pull the trigger between shots.
I’m not a “gun lover” and have never owned a gun, or fired one since I was in the Navy 1965-66.
Never felt the need for one, no matter where in the world I went. (Not always the “safest” places)
Living in Singapore there were not many hunting opportunities and no need for any kind of gun for personal protection, nor could you just go and buy one. 
This article is a “gift” from Wapo so everybody should be able to read it without a subscription:
Here’s an article from a US Republican Representative that echos my thinking. He has had to walk this back to get reelected but his thoughts mirror my thinking for many years ever since I returned to the USA and went to gun shops that formerly carried very nice shotguns or rifles for hunting only to find 95% of the stock was now weapons designed to kill people.
Pretty close to mine as well. I also carried a fully-automatic, government issued rifle and a whole bunch of ammo in a HFP zone for nearly a year of my life. I also grew up in a family with a tradition of hunting, a tradition I participated in for many years.
I know many responsible gun owners. I also know some folks for whom the Second Amendment is, apparently, the first and last word of the Constitution. They have elevated it as some sort of religious idol. That makes me very uncomfortable for many reasons.
There is room for some common-sense measures that might go some way toward preventing the sorts of events we see over, and over, and over. If there is not, we need to just admit that we’re okay with sacrificing our children.
" There is room for some common-sense measures that might go some way toward preventing the sorts of events we see over, and over, and over."
Yes, there has to be a way. But banning the sales, possession, or ownership, is not it. Let us work to find the proper way.
“If there is not, we need to just admit that we’re okay with sacrificing our children.”
Over half of the population of the US already appears to be ok with that sacrifice. From 1980 to 1997 over a million a year were sacrificed. It has tapered to over 600K a year after that.
I don’t disagree. One of the great mysteries of life in 20th and 21st century America has been, for me, why the party that professes to stand for the rights of the oppressed and minorities does not defend those least able to defend themselves. And, conversely, why the party that professes to be all about family values and the defense of the unborn refuses to take action to defend (limit in some meaningful way the availability of guns) and support (expand Medicaid, TANF, child care, etc.) those families once the kids are here.
It all hurts my head, and my heart.
