I agree with everything you wrote. However it does not invalidate anything in my post.
An AR15 is not a functional assault weapon because it is not capable of full auto or burst fire.
The reporting is deficient because reporter refers to the rifle using an incorrect adjective.
It is similar to calling fire truck a tow truck because it has a similar engine and chasse and it is capable of pulling a car out of the mud.
True, certainly.
However I am not particularly exercise by the use of the word, as the reality is that these rifles are functionally identical to genuine military rifles in the circumstances in question.
They ARE deadlier than the usual civilian hunting rifles in the context of a massacre like this, in terms of potential dead people per minute, and they are no less deadly in this context than an M4 carbine. They might as well be called “assault rifles” because they might as well be assault rifles.
The argument is a complaint about rhetoric. Though it is to a degree an exaggeration, it isn’t much of one. This has to be conceded, at least within a reasonable discussion.
The real argument as I see it is whether the political purpose of the Second Amendment trumps danger of the rare cases when weapons that conform so well to such a constitutional purpose are misused.