Great breakdown of this issue. I recently got into a similar argument with a liberal friend. He believes in the "pragmatic" idea of banning certain firearms that he decided are unnecessary and inappropriate for "regular people" to possess. When pressed, he admitted that would be nearly impossible and wouldn't necessarily save lives, and didn't care, so I don't even think he finds his position very pragmatic. Either way, I tried to explain to him that he has no right to decide for others what they are allowed to own as a matter of principle. He then employed a strawman, claiming I "want everyone to have a gun" and the old "you're utopian if you don't believe in coercion" line. I attempted to explain the difference between his consequentialist worldview and my support for individuals' inherent right to be free from coercion, regardless of the outcome for "society".

Sadly, I think so many people are brainwashed into this consequentialist ideology in mainstream academic institutions. Too many leftists with fancy degrees think they know everything and are completely unwilling to challenge their beliefs.