I'm going to chime in on the semantics of "assault rifle" "modern sporting rifle" "AR15/M16" etc.
I understand that the media likes to use the term "assault rifle" in a pejorative way to drum up opposition to them. I understand that the term "assault rifle" originally meant capable of full auto fire. I understand that an AR15 is a semi-auto only version of an M16, which is capable of either full auto or burst fire.
What I don't understand is why gun owners insist on fighting this semantic fight.
If it was normally possible to have a rationed, evidence-based discussion with someone of an opposing political/philosophical viewpoint on a "contentious" topic in this country then I'd agree. However I don't believe that's where we are at present.
I suspect most people on here have heard of the "boiling a frog" idea. No idea if it actually works on frogs or not, but I think there's ample evidence from history that it works on people. You can go with the "First they came for the..." poem if you want a literary vehicle.
There are a lot of people out there who want to send people with guns to take away our guns. These people know darn well that guns are power, and they want sole control of that power. It doesn't matter what we say to those people or what terms we use.
There are a lot MORE people out there who don't own guns (or maybe they own a gun but don't really think about it much and have no idea when they last shot it - if ever). They certainly don't care about guns. They're either convinced they could never need to fight against their government or they've never even considered it. Since they don't own guns, don't care about guns, and don't see a use for guns they're really just fine with guns being taken away from other people - especially if they're convinced that guns are horrible death machines and thus anyone who voluntarily owns one must be a bad person.
It is THOSE people we need to reach, and those people who are swayed by terms like "assault rifle." "High capacity magazine." "Mass shooting." Those are the people who think a "gun free zone" means that no one can possibly be shot there - because there's no guns, right?
So, yes, I believe we DO need to have the semantic fights (and come up with and widely use more accurate terms and/or less emotionally-laden terms: standard capacity magazine, for example.
Because those people who don't care? They vote. And they give money to "good" causes - like saving children from guns. Who can be against something that protects children? And obviously "assault rifles" have no place around children.
I don't know if we can "win" the war of words, but I'd rather have that kind of war than a real one.