Originally Posted by Webleymkv
As is usually the case with restriction of rights, the best test when speaking about the regulation or banning of weapons is to compare the proposed regulation's benefit to public interest against its abridgment of personal liberty. A regulation that greatly increases public safety while only minimally affecting liberty is a reasonable one while the regulation that serves little or not benefit to public safety but greatly diminishes personal liberty is an unreasonable one.
One problem with the standard you propose is that it eliminates the constitutional protection stated in the Second Amendment. To any justice predisposed to approving a ban or restriction, the increase in public safety will always outweigh the burden of an infringement.
The more useful test would be:
1. Does the government have a compelling interest in creating the law?
2. Is the statute "narrowly tailored" to meet the government's objectives?
3. Are there less restrictive means of accomplishing the same thing?
A court that reaches its conclusion first then cobbles together ad hoc reasoning in support of that conclusion can distort any test, but at least conventional strict scrutiny puts them to a bit more effort.