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

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. 

Yep, cause no other countries have people who go postal for really no reason.  Oh, wait...

Do you really have to ask why it's overkill? A handgun is a small weapon, with smaller range. A variant of the AR 15 is what the army uses. It's a weapon designed to be an effective kill tool, in use in war. Saying they're both the same thing because they're both desgined to kill someone is odd. I could say that about nuclear bombs (to exagerate). Why can't we have nuclear bombs in our garages?

In what possible case would a civilian need an AR 15 to defend himself?

In what possible case would a civilian need an AR 15 to defend himself?

Do you really have to ask why it's overkill? A handgun is a small weapon, with smaller range. A variant of the AR 15 is what the army uses. It's a weapon designed to be an effective kill tool, in use in war. Saying they're both the same thing because they're both desgined to kill someone is odd. I could say that about nuclear bombs (to exagerate). Why can't we have nuclear bombs in our garages?

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.