I saw an article pop up on my feed recently saying that you were almost four times as likely to be murdered by stabbing as shot by a rifle in the U.S. in 2016. I couldn’t resist looking at the data myself, which can be found here. In that data, you can see that rifles, and long guns in general (which includes shotguns) are generally not used in murders. So while the rather high profile crime of the recent Las Vegas massacre weighs heavily on our minds these days, restricting the use of rifles of any kind would have little to no impact on the total number of murders in the U.S. each year.
Here's my excel sheet with the sums and ratios of different types of weapons to rifles
As you can see in the last line in my chart, you were 19 times as likely to be shot by a handgun as a rifle in 2016. You were 8.7 times as likely to be shot by a “type unknown” firearm as a rifle (these are likely unknown due to calibers used in both rifles and pistols, like .22LR, but rest assured that most of these are committed with pistols, which would increase the ratio of handguns to rifles homicides if we could see that data). You were 4.8 times as likely to be killed by “other weapons” as a rifle, which could include improvised things like a piece of lumber, a hammer or a car. And finally, you were 1.8 times as likely to be killed by someone’s bare hands* as you were to be killed by a rifle. Let me repeat that. You were almost twice as likely to be killed by someone’s bare hands as you were to be killed by a rifle.
The only weapon type that was less likely to be used in a homicide than a rifle, was a shotgun. Even when you combine the two types of long guns, there were still more homicides by someone’s bare hands. It takes time, planning and discipline to learn how to effectively use, and then actually use a long gun in a crime. Since most criminals aren't particularly conscientious like most long gun owners typically are, you don't see them using this type of weapon very often to commit crimes. Since rifles in general are rare in violent crime statistics, it makes the infamous AR15 even more rare, since it's one among dozens of popular rifles in circulation in the U.S. today. Since I don't own one, this will not effect me personally, but if we continue down this slippery slope, my guns will be next on the list.
Now that I've shown you the lack of utility in enacting restrictions on rifles like the AR15 used in some recent high profile shootings, in my opinion, all of that is beside the point. Each person should have the uninhibited ability to defend themselves against aggression. If that person is a peaceful person, both in rhetoric and in practice, no other person has cause to disarm the peaceful one, and for me this also includes the allowance of handguns (which I also don't own, but I could see the need for in certain circumstances).
Taking guns from peaceful people because “they might commit a crime with them” is like George Bush attacking Iraq for imaginary weapons of mass destruction. This is a construction of an enemy in the mind’s eye that has no basis in reality. These people are not likely to attack anyone, and for those who have a history of initiating violence, do whatever you wish with them. They’re the only ones you need protection from, and someone who is actually prepared to defend themselves might just be the one to protect you from them, not the other way around.
*By bare hands, I mean the “Hands, fists and feet” designation in the FBI’s Table 12 chart.