This isn't a compelling argument. Those "hunting rifles" are the designs that killed millions from 1910-1950 (probably more than any small arm before or after).
In the US, there are something like 3-400 rifle shootings compared to 40-50,000 pistol shootings. When you look up mass shootings, you'll see pistols used all the time because 20-30 rounds in a tiny pistol are about as lethal as 20-30 rounds in a rifle at close range against unarmored targets while being TONS more maneuverable.
Tavor x95 is 26.4" with a 15.5" barrel. The M1 carbine (already cut down from the M16) is 7.5" longer despite having a shorter 14.5" barrel and although the weight is technically the same, the Tavor seems 2-3x lighter because the weight is right next to the body rather than a foot away.
Tavor x95 Carbine (22.5" long) is almost a foot shorter and 3/4 lb lighter than the M4 carbine. The M4 CQRB blinds the shooter in dark rooms and loses tons of stopping power with the 10" barrel, but is still a quarter-pound heavier and 3.5" longer. Those inches have a huge impact on time to target which is critical indoors.
Despite this, countries like Canada which ban the "assault rifles" like the AR-15 still allow the Tavor. It's not about the style of rifle.
I'd also put forward that if efficiency were the goal, 6.5 Grendel would be used instead of 5.56 as it has almost 2x the momentum, 20% more kinetic energy, and 4x lower ballistic coefficient while only increasing weight 10-15% (still half the weight of 7.62).
The US has tried to move away from the AR-15 platform numerous times (and a ton of special forces who have the option already have). Each time, they run into the issue where the training costs (hundreds of hours for millions of people), rifle costs, and cost to replace billions of rounds of ammo are just too high despite the efficiency increases.
AR isn't the best. It's just the most pragmatic at the moment.