1. The article should make the point more clear about the difference between fully-automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The article does make the distinction, but it describes 'assault rifles' as having a 'selective rate of fire', which is true only of true assault rifles, i.e. true military fully automatic rifles. The civilian versions are semi-automatic.
2. As much as I agree with the argument that the only significant difference between "assault rifles" and low powered hunting rifles is the selective rate of fire, I think this needs to be better supported.
Those who are in support of "assault weapons bans" often use dishonest arguments about "high rate of fire" and so forth. but there are honest defenders of these laws who point to such features as pistol grips as making these guns particularly suitable for "spray and pray" criminals. I don't agree with these poeple, but the argument needs to be noted as an honest point.
Is that political point even appropriate for this page? Perhaps it is. But we need to be careful to present the debate, rather than take a side in the debate. We can best present the debate by giving the strongest arguments from each side.
I see that the politics tie somewhat into the definition that various groups tag to the "Assault rifle" term. Maybe just mention that on the page itself? Other than that, I think the gun politics should be confined to their own page ... --Robbe