Not to mention that you are still ignoring the fact that AR15s are not distinct from other .22 rifles, including hunting rifles.
Which makes sense. A rifle is designed for a longer range, which is why you need a faster bullet.
Really don't know crap about guns, do you?
Which .22 caliber cartridge are you talking about? Those used in air pistols and air rifles (called caps or Floberts), a .22 handgun cartridge, a .22 Long cartridge for a handgun (most commonly used in target shooting competitions, with old Colts and modern single-action adaptations), a .22 Long Rifle cartridge (22LR), a .223 Remington, a 5.56 NATO, just off the top of my head? They are all vastly different from each other. I am going to assume you are talking about the 22LR, since this is the most powerful .22 caliber cartridge you can get. It is also a popular caliber for hunting vermin and rabbits.
The AR15 does
NOT use a .22 cartridge, it uses a .223 Remington/5.56x45 NATO cartridge (bore of .224 or 5.56mm in metric - I know, why call it a .223 when it is actually .224?), which is a VASTLY different animal compared to the 22LR cartridge. The .223 Remington and the 5.56 NATO are almost identical and can be used interchangeably in most receivers (but not all), so I am going to treat them as identical for this discussion. Here are some of the differences between the 22LR and .223R/5.56 NATO cartridges:
Typical weight for a .223R/5.56 NATO is 55 to 65 grains, that for a 22LR is 30 to 40 grains.
Typical muzzle velocity with a 16-inch barrel is 3,000 to 3,400 fps for the .223R and 1,000 to 1,200 fps for the 22LR.
Typical energy of a .223R upon exit is
12 to 15 times that of a 22LR.
They are also very different in length and in internal composition. The 22LR is most often used as a naked lead ball (sometimes coated with copper), while the .223R/5.56 NATO is always encased in a copper jacket. The .223R/5.56 has a steel core beneath the lead shell extending from the tip to near the tail, and sometimes also comes with a hardened steel spear point (US Army standard green tip ammo which is also very popular in the US AR world).
The 5.56 NATO is the ammo of choice for military use in most western countries, and there is a good reason for this. That is because it is the most effective projectile for killing people and inflicting damage in short to medium range combat. Even the Russians, who have been invested fully in the 7.62x49 cartridge used with the AK receivers for so long have begun to switch to a 5.45x49 cartridge after seeing just how deadly the 5.56 NATO round is.
The 5.56 NATO can punch through Level 2 and 3 soft armor (the kind that is so popular with US law enforcement) and Level 3 ballistic shields. Under the right conditions, it can also punch through 3A hard armor (hardened steel plates covered with a ceramic/textile coat) that is sometimes used by the US Army to supplement the general issue flak jackets. FYI, Level 3 soft armor will stop most handgun projectiles, .32S&W, .38, .357 with a magnum charge, .44S&W, .45ACP and 9mmx19 Luger, but a 5.56 NATO round will penetrate both the front and the back of the armor AFTER it has traveled through 4 inches of wood. That is why the officers at Uvalde took a fucking hour to storm the room and kill the shooter, because they knew he had an AR15 that could penetrate their body armor and shields.
The 5.56 round is designed to tumble upon contact - instead of punching through bone (like a 7.62 AK round would), it bounces off and continues to inflict soft tissue damage. Your chances of recovery after being shot in the torso by a 5.56 round are slim, even if you can be immediately treated at a hospital that is skilled at treating gunshot wounds. The 5.56 round is also very aerodynamic and exhibits very little drop over 300 to 500 yards, and will punch through soft armor even at these distances.
Which makes sense. A rifle is designed for a longer range, which is why you need a faster bullet.
The AR15 is designed for use in short to medium range combat, not for long range sniper operations. While a skilled marksman can hit a human target at 300 yards with an AR15, that is not its intended function. There are much better rifles for long range operations.
Your ignorance is showing. I said "comparable to other similar rifles". There are plenty non-assaulty .22 hunting rifles.
A 22LR does nowhere near the damage that a 5.56 NATO round can inflict. If you shoot a pig in the head with a 22LR, you will probably just give it a really bad headache, unless you find a hole or soft spot in its skull. With a 5.56 NATO you will scatter its brains over a 50 yard splash zone.
Also, most serious hunters shooting game don't use semiauto AR15s, they use bolt action rifles. Because the AR15 is not designed for hunting game, it is designed to kill people.
My assertion is not specious at all. I was simply saying that handgun like the Glock 19 are plenty powerful enough to kill people, especially at short range as is the case in school/workplace shootings.
It is much easier for a novice to kill lots of people using an AR15 than a Glock 19, and I have been over this with you in the past. But you don't have to take my word for it. Go to a range, rent an AR15 and a Glock 19/17, hire an instructor for an hour or two, and shoot at a paper target at 10, 25 and 50 yards. Come back and post your groupings here.
What characteristics would you ban?
Ideally, any semiautomatic rifle/pistol that shoots a .223R/5.56 NATO using a gas impingement/gas charge system.
Handguns account for a lot more homicides than rifles of any type. In fact, there are almost twice as many people killed using "hands, fists, feet etc." than with rifles.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't start somewhere.
