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.
This is not necessarily true.
In any practical sense any semi-auto rifle is potentially as deadly as a AR15. The only functional difference is the capacity of the magazine.
Take for instance the Rugar Mini-14. The standard 5 round magazine would require 4 extra magazines to equal the 20 round standard magazine for a AR-15 (my AR-15 did come with a 5 round magazine from Colt).
But the Mini-14 does have 20 and 30 round after market magazines that are available which can give it equal fire power to the AR-15.
In all reality any semi-auto hunting rifle with a detachable box magazine has the same potential as an AR-15. It only needs for some sheet metal worker to come up with an after market high capacity magazine.
Only the esthetics and ease of modification make a hunting rifle different from the AR-15.