The problem with your analysis is that bullet mass and velocity are not the only factors that determine how much damage the bullet causes. Much more important is how much of the energy is transferred to the target. At close range, a heavy slow bullet is generally more effective than a light weight fast bullet. Ask any big game hunter.
Besides, banning a particular gun because you believe it causes worse wounds than other guns is absurd. It makes it sound like you are establishing rules to make a sporting event more fair.
When that .44 bullet gets stopped by bone, 100% of the energy is imparted to the animal (or person) and the bone shatters into little pieces. Your day will be seriously be ruined. If forced to make the choice, I would MUCH rather be shot with a .233 than a .44 magnum.
The vast majority of murders including mass murders, are at close range … less than 15 yards. A rifle provides no particular advantage at that distance and may even create some disadvantages in some situations because it is less wieldable.
The key word there is “can.” Far more critical to causing damage to flesh is bullet design. And those who have made bullet design their life work will tell you that a heavy, sub sonic, well designed bullet will do more damage and be more lethal than small fast moving ball ammo such as is usually fired from AR style rifles. As Sneaky said, shooting is more than math.
And it would be nice, particularly coming from someone like you who has repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance, that you knock off the personal insults. It is not helpful.