I'm not talking to Pkr the forum's resident trolling piece of shit, who everyone should ignore. For one thing, after having debunked his arguments a dozen times and seeing him still make them, I've figured out the poor sod can't read and comprehend things, anyway.
But, just for anyone else who's even slightly taken in by any other worthless jag-off who makes the same kind of "deer rifle" claims that Pkr-the-lonesome-prideless-asshole-who-just-won't-leave-even-though-nobody-wants-him (probably has no friends or family in real life, either, and I can understand why... god, I bet his children hate holidays) keeps making, here are a few gun facts just to counter such garbage-human-fuckwit's yammering-idiot misinformation.
An AR-15 bullet is smaller than what's fired by the average deer rifle, but it's a good deal faster, and, thus, does more damage. There's a reason for that - you don't want a deer rifle pulverizing meat, while in a military situation you don't care because you're not gonna be eating what you hit, and you want it put down instantly before it can shoot back.
There's a ballistic phenomenon called "hydrostatic shock." Human tissue contains a lot of water. If you've ever fired a BB gun into wet mud, you'll notice that the hole in the mud is much bigger than a BB. That's due to the force driving the BB, spreading the mud out into a crater. Well, multiply that by one whole hell of a lot, and you'll understand a little of what a .223 bullet (or 5.56mm if you wanna get all NATO about it) does to tissue. An AR's bullet is relatively small, but there's a lot of powder pushing it, and it travels so fast and hits so hard it leaves a wound channel like a Coke can. It's called "cavitation." And the shock can disrupt other organs -- the impact can drive fluid back so hard that an impact that doesn't hit the heart, but near it, can cause fatal damage from things tearing due to being "inflated" so rapidly.
Ever wonder why so many injuries during the Civil War resulted in amputation? You know, somebody'd just hit hit in the leg, and they'd have to saw the whole limb off? Well, that wasn't just for expediency -- it was because the ammunition they used was so big it wouldn't just break bones -- it would remove chunks of the bones, like take out several inches of it, and you couldn't set the bone anymore; it wasn't just broken, it was gone. So, they'd just have to saw the limb off. Well, a .223 will do something similar, but due to velocity rather than bullet weight. A hit on a bone will usually shatter it.
Also, an AR's bullets have tendency to "tumble" -- they'll go end-over-end, which makes a lot more damage. One weapon notorious for that is the CAR-15, which was basically a shortened version of the M-16 that ARs developed from. Half the time you'd shoot one of those at a target you'd get "keyhole" impacts from the bullet going in sideways. And it's all worse when it gets inside the body. Those bullets will whiz through you like a fidget spinner, mulching everything in their path.
When you're talking the kind of damage an AR's bullet does, discussions of what's "more lethal" are pretty silly. Either one is going to mess up up good, but ARs are designed to kill people. Their ballistics take into account things like going through clothes and even armor. That's not a concern with ammunition traditionally used to hunt deer, although, of course, a deer rifle will also kill you without much problem. But, they're not specifically designed for that, and not for taking out large numbers rapidly, or putting them down fast. Like I said, the things you're supposed to be shooting at with an AR will be shooting back at you.
More info on what an AR's bullet does here:
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/
And nobody but an absolute skill-less douchebag with no respect for the sport goes deer-hunting with a semi-auto. About the only thing people hunt with AR's are varmit animals that they don't intend to eat, because those bullets will tear up way too goddamn much of the meat. The only semi-legit "hunter" I know who has any use for a .223 semi-auto is a guy I know who hunts wild pigs. They run in packs, and he doesn't eat them -- he just hunts them to try to control the destruction they cause. An AR is not a "sporting gun" unless you're a complete twat who needs to spend more time practicing on the rifle range.
And, no, an AR isn't just a "gun that looks scary." There are other weapons that should be out of the hands of the public that look more traditional, like the Mini-14 or an SKS. It still will have a rapid fire rate (even semi-auto, as fast as you can squeeze the trigger) and can be converted to full-auto by various methods, and can take extended clips, holding more ammo. I know it's a popular delusion among right-wing morons that people are just reacting to what the guns look like because they don't understand 'em, but people understand more than right-wingers give them credit for. It's what the gun does that's the problem.
If you get semi-auto .223 rifles off the market, will that end shootings? No, of course not, but it'll cut down the kill rate. People will still be shot with handguns, shotguns, bolt-action rifles... and nobody's likely to ever ban those because at least those do have legitimate civilian uses. But military-style weapons, with faster rates of fire, higher magazine capacity, and more devastating ballistics, are designed to kill people, in large numbers, rapidly. Limiting availability of those will make it harder for killers to do things like shoot NINE HUNDRED PEOPLE like the Vegas sniper did. It won't eliminate shootings completely -- Charles Whitman killed 17 people from a Texas tower back in 1966 with hunting rifles. But he was an exceptional marksman, in a secure elevated location, and if he'd had what the Vegas shooter had, things would have been even worse, most likely. This Cruz asshole was not very skilled and out in the open, but managed to kill 17 largely due to the weapon he had. A semi-auto with .223 bullets makes up for a lot of lack of skill.
Which, come to think of it, is probably why a bunch of incompetent gun nuts like AR's so much. They don't have to be as good of a shot to feel more dangerous.
The other bullshit argument I keep hearing from the NRA's mindless slaves is "are they gonna ban knives next?" Which is really silly. Yes, you can kill people with a knife. But, people can run from a knife. And every time you go after someone with a knife, you've got a fight on your hands, every damn time. You're not likely to win more than two or three fights in a row. And you're not likely to be brave enough to get in the first one. A gun makes killing a lot easier.
Nothing's going to stop all murders. You can't Nerf the world. But you can sure as hell make it harder for people to kill off the numbers of people they're killing.
Oh, and while I'm on it -- the "arm the teachers" argument. That's some horseshit right there. Cops barely hit their targets under stress, so a teacher's gonna try it? When I was in high school, I got (verbally) threatened with guns more times than I can remember by people who never went out to their truck and actually brought the thing in, and I got knives pulled on me twice, but the only time I really thought I might get shot in school was by a teacher. We had this coach who was very high strung. He had big scars on either side of his neck where he'd had to get veins scraped due to hypertension. Big Buford-Pusser-lookin' jerk, always angry, always stupid. He shouldn't have been teaching classes in the first place -- I can't even remember exactly what he taught (I think it was history) because he never really taught anything - the class was basically a study hall. I remember once for about a week he taught our algebra class because the real teacher quit, and the best he could do was tell us, "You know that Camaro, the Z-28? Well, that's like algebra, because it has letters and numbers!" Brilliant, yeah?
Anyway, one day he came in, furious because someone had toilet-papered another coach's yard. So he turns red and purple and starts SCREAMING at us, "I just HOPE one of you little bastards rolls MY yard! I've got a .44 Magnum and I WILL KILL YOU!" He was so unhinged that other teachers had to come in and calm him down, and girls in the class were crying. And yet I'm sure this guy would've been one of the first claiming he needed to conceal-carry to "rescue" us all. Nowdays that guy probably would've gotten fired, but, this was the 1980's in Mississippi, I don't think he even had to talk to the principal.
So, anyway, no... no armed teachers. I've known very few I'd trust with a gun in a crisis.
Another problem with that is confusion when the real cops show up. At my workplace, we had an "active shooter" alert (which was stupid because the "shooter" ended up being some guy who just ran his mouth and didn't even have a gun). Anyway, some guy decided he was going to go rescue his girlfriend in another building, and he got a knife and went to get her. There was no real shooter, but people panicked because there was a guy with a knife, and the cops almost shot the guy, thinking he was causing some mayhem. If teachers are waving guns around, the cops aren't going to know who to shoot when they show up. It's wiser to lessen that confusion.