First of all, as a practical matter, banning all weapons that have a similar range to the AR would mean banning almost all hunting weapons too (if “effective range” is the metric you’re using for banning people)...
2nd, Heller (and 2A jurisprudence generally), reads the 2A not merely as a right of self defense against your neighbor, but as a bulwark against the state. I.e. merely saying something isn’t “self defense” the way Hogg did doesn’t address the core constitutional concerns at play.
Finally, as a practical matter, (other than Vegas) no one is committing mass shootings from 400 meters
They’re shooting in school hallways and crowded nightclubs. Would also like to point to the fact that the Sutherland Springs church shooting killer was stopped by a guy with an AR-15
Also, under that reasoning, we should find that law enforcement officers wouldn't want a gun that's useless for defense at close range. But as it turns out, law enforcement agencies regularly choose to arm officers with both handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Why?...
Because they're very effective for defense of self and others at close and medium ranges...and the further you are from the threat when you have to engage, the safer you are.
