That's not generally accepted definition. That's just one of the many definitions of assault rifle people are using. That it's the one you personally happen to like for what ever reason does not mean anything.

assault rifle: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle

I think that Swiss army and Austrian army knows quit a bit about guns and they disagree.

For the same reason zero is considered a number. Not firing is also a fire mode.

I go by the military definition. Webster says an assault rifle is semiautomatic, it is not. Also, it says large capacity magazines, which they don't use. A 30 round magazine for a rifle is standard capacity. High capacity ones are available, but they are heavy, bulky drums that no one really uses. I wouldn't consider Webster's to be gun experts, anyways.

From here: http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Army_Gives_Definition_Of_Assault_Rifle.pdf

2. The definition of an “assault rifle” is “Assault rifles are short, compact, select-fire (i.e. both semiautomatic and full-automatic) weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

Any other definition isn't an assault rifle, period.

It's abundantly clear you don't know much about guns. I'm tired of arguing the point.

Nothing better than a pedantic argument of semantics!

I would much prefer a semantic argument of pedantics. Or... A discussion of the semantics employed by the common pedant.

Assault is an action that is taken by the one holding the rifle. The rifle itself, is what it is. A rifle.

FONV had about the closest "correct names" for these weapons as any.

The M16 was called "Service Rifle" in FONV.

http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment/weapons/m16

The M4 was called "Marksman Carbine" in FONV.

http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment/weapons/m4-carbine

This is pretty close to what the Marines call them.

Language is a living thing, and often changes are at work that may offend one's traditionalist sensibilities. I'm 56, and grew up hearing "auto pistol" applied fairly often to what are more properly called semiautomatics, for example. May be a US thing.

To me, that an "assault rifle" would have selectable modes of fire, makes sense. That "revolver" is a subset of "pistol," and that pistols are handguns. Think of the old western movies where a "pistol belt" usually had a revolver or two stuck in them.

Some changes in language that bug me: "guide rail" instead of "guard rail," as along a roadway. Again, I see this in the US, but why change? For decades, it was "guard rail."

Smokey the Bear saying, "Only you can prevent wildfires." Okay, now this one may make a little more sense, as obviously not all fires take place in a forest, but still, we grew up hearing "forest fires."

Saying "in hospital," versus "in the hospital." To me, "in hospital" sounds British, not American. Not saying either way is necessarily better, but why change?

Last ten years or so, people on the TV news and in movies and TV shows saying "pleaded," instead of "pled." He pleaded guilty. What the heck is wrong with saying it the way it was for the first 40 or 45 years of my life: "he pled guilty"?

Pretty sure the later (whiskey / bourbon) has a legal reason to be true, the former (revolver / pistol) has no legit (much less legal) standing.