The reasoning is flawed, the first reason being that a right does not depend on necessity or legitimacy, a right is inate. Secondly, all guns serve a purpose and there are really only three variances in guns, how the firing primer is ignited, rimfire, centerfire, and muzzle fire, any other differences are based on range and rate of fire, many guns can be modified as per rate of fire by someone knowledgable enough to change the springs at the trigger mechanism and range can be changed by powder load, all without the government knowing the difference. Third, the government has no justification in banning anything that is not provably necessary and proper as pertaining to rights, something they have failed in proving immensely throughout the history of anti-second law.
And yet, cars kill more people statistically if you include all fatalities including suicide, murder, accidental shootings, and personal protection, if you take out the irrelevant data, such as suicide, defensive homicide, and accidents, the ratio shrinks even further, so what exactly could be a compelling reason for public safety over cars, airplanes, etc.
We have the constitution, founders writings, statistics, and the Bill of Rights on our side, so the onus isn't on us.
There is no grey area, the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
, and the Bill of Rights are individual rights, as written by the founders. That is as black and white in plain english as it gets.