I wonder where jurisprudence stands on attempts to limit ammunition. Does the right to bear arms extend to ammunition for those arms? A literal and narrow interpretation of the reading would state that it only says you can own and convey weapons but not actually use them, whereas a practical interpretation would suggest that ownership of ammunition is implied.

Any court cases weigh on this one before? Did the NRA try to challenge that 1986 law cited in the OP?

Seems like it doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things. Homicide rate is greatly dependent on population density and not much else, as you illustrated. Do you tend to avoid cities for the same reason you avoid gun owners? 

If you know how to use an AR (which most do that own one) then using it for self defense shouldn't be a problem. "Crime potentail" being the key phrase, most crimes are commited with pistols, because they're easy to conceal and lightweight. 

Which I again ask, why are they going after the AR? Why not go after handguns? they're used in the vast majority of crimes after all. (not that I want them to try and take handguns, just saying)

You use an AR 15 rifle for self defense? Talk about overkill.

My point is that there is virtually no benefit to allowing higher capacity rifles, while there are downsides (as I explained about crime potential). Crime potential as I used it simply means that it is technically superior for committing crimes. Obviously these guns are more expensive, illegal in some areas (I believe) and have lower ownership, so crime rates with these weapons will be lower, however, that doesn't mean they are doing any good.

Handguns do have some benefit, as do traditional hunting rifles and shotguns which is why it is extremely difficult to take them away.

When it comes to cost/benefit weighing, while there may be comparitively little cost for AR-15 like weapons, the non existent benefits makes it seem clear that there should be no reason to allow these guns to be sold or owned.

PS: I think one of the major hurdles that we need to pass is better gun screening moreso than better gun limitation, however that is a significantly more difficult goal to achieve. As such, I believe that limiting guns with high technical crime potential is a good step to take, and weighing the cost/benefit of their removal, I again see no cost and a non-insignificant benefit, therefore I find it hard to validate your argument that these guns do little harm comparitively. You may only see numbers, but the lives that are lost to people weilding these guns are not insignificant. If lives could be saved by limiting these weapons, I don't see the argument to keeping them.

Why is it over kill? It's a gun, designed to kill someone/thing, like every other gun out there. 

The problem is that you are defining, "benefit" and "value" in your terms. Obviously if somebody buys something they place value on it of some form. Value is necessarily marginal and subjective. You also define something called, "crime potential" a very useless concept in my opinion, because - as you said- in the real world crimes are commited more often with other weapons. So if the real world risk is lower, and the real world benefit (for those who choose to purchase such an item) is greater what is the problem here? If these weapons are useless, why are people purchasing them? If their only use is to kill other people, why aren't they using these weapons to kill other people? 

Handguns aren't weapons of war. That's why you don't see too many bans on those outside of clip/magazine size. They are used in most murders in the US but of course you wouldn't know it from the message being projected by Media and Governmental sources.

I think it's insane to think that because so many murders and crimes are committed with a certain weapon, said weapon need to be banned. I'd like to think that technology does not exist in a vacuum and to rely on others for your own defense borders on ridiculous. Especially when official like police officers have no obligation to protect your life. Imagine if a bunch of Mexican cartel members poured into Texas and tried to harass the local government for the right to sell their product there. BAM, the police are pretty much paid to do nothing about drug crime because there's no financial incentive to do so and the populace is made all the more endangered because of it. Oh wait, Texas has a high private gun ownership rate. That would be suicidal in real life.

Rifles, on the other hand, are. And I love them for it. I hate war myself. I also love self-defense and property rights. Historically, property rights have been protected through weapons and I don't see it stopping now. It's amazing, in my opinion, how anyone could love to have property rights but hate weapons. When the difference between you and yours in someone with a gun, I'd hope you'd rather have a gun than not have one.

Why should a certain type of gun be taken away based on potential crime use? Unless their is a mass exodus of crime commited with Rifles there is no need to ban them. Criminals will get their hands on guns regardless of any sort of gun ban, so any lives saved would be near 0 banning guns. 

Germany is one of the more densely populated countries in the world (on average 100 times more densely than Wyoming 2.2 residents/km² vs 227 r/km²), 2013 we had 282 homicides total with a 80.9m population, that's 0.35/100,000 even way below Wyoming

seems like I don't need to fear a city without gun owners (ofcourse there is some per mille of gun owners even here) :)

the last time I was in a big city with a noteable share of gun owners was when I was in NYC, but back then I was still young and trusting and the WTC was still standing

anyway I had enough fun this thread, so I'll see myself out :)