They cannot identify most of the dead from last night's slaughter

[cab67]

122. What you describe was the opposite of my intent.

I want to keep the conversation going, and like I said, I don't think anyone needs an assault-style rifle. But such weapons are not assault rifles. I'm not just talking about how gun manufacturers label their products, either - the distinction is also legal. Rifles that can be fired in automatic mode are classified as assault rifles, and many jurisdictions ban or restrict them. Rifles that can't be fired in automatic mode are classified as assault style rifles, and unfortunately, most jurisdictions still allow individuals to buy and own them.

I respectfully disagree that pointing to a terminological problem stops an argument. That's because it doesn't really impact the argument itself. Whether the AR-15 and similar weapons are assault or assault style rifles, they shouldn't be in civilian hands. If people are put off when terminological points are made, that's on them.

Suppose someone argues that we should protect endangered fish such as whales. If I point out that whales aren't fish, I'm saying nothing about the need to protect them (which is very real). It's precisely the same thing.

Using the wrong term can be weaponized against us in a debate. I've seen it happen.