An 'assault weapon' functions no differently than any semi-automatic weapon with an external magazine. They have a different shape, and are made of different materials, but at the end of the day they fire roughly the same projectiles at roughly the same rate of fire. You're right that they're designed for different uses and applications, and the *actual* military hardware is indeed designed to support the kind of tactics important in warfighting (from full-auto fire, to shortened length, to manufacturing tolerances that favor reliability over, say, accuracy) -- civilan facsimiles of these weapons mimic some of these things (sometimes length for instance), but not others (full-auto fire). In some cases, that mimicry actually makes these weapons less effective in some sense -- shorter barrels are less accurate, and impart less velocity on the projectile -- the military uses shorter barrels mostly because it makes the weapon easier to carry on your person or in a vehicle, and saves material costs -- though, tactically, they're also handier when fighting room-to-room or in other tight spaces. In a similar vein, military calibers like .223 are less-potent than your typical hunting calibers (say, .243, .270, 30-06) and by a wide margin most available .223 ammunition is FMJ rather than hollow-point or soft-nosed hunting ammunition. Are the so-called 'assault weapons' different from your grand-dad's bolt or lever-action rifle -- absolutely. But are they more deadly than any magazine-fed design in any practical sense? -- I don't think anyone can make a credible claim that they are.
Oh come on, its near impossible to shoot multiple close range fast moving targets with a bolt-action hunting rifle. Its a breeze with a semi or full automatic with an external magazine. Of course a hunting rifle can kill a person, if that was your intent; no one's arguing that. But imagine the Columbine shoots but now with a bolt action rifle. One person dead, the rest are fine after having just run away. In nearly every situation involving people, a bolt action rifle is a very poor choice of weapon.
I don't get the argument that the average citizen should be limited to 1880s-era technology so that he doesn't hurt himself or others with it. That's like saying we'd be a safer and more effective populace if we all drove model-Ts instead of modern cars. Even if you take at face value that, say, lower-speeds would reduce traffic deaths, would you still impose that penalty on the entire population who, for the most part, have proven trustworthy of driving more-capable things? Would you feel bad when an injured person didn't reach the hospital in time because their ride topped out at 30mph? Would you do all of that, knowing that the car is just a thing that bends to the will or mistakes of the person behind the wheel, and that we can fix the person problem rather than taking away effective, modern cars from everyone?
*please excuse the car analogy, I know they're over used*
Taking the car analogy a little further, so you think anyone should be able to drive without a drivers license? There's different licenses for different vehicle types because they operate differently. To group all vehicles together is silly. Likewise pretending a hunting rifle is in the same category as an assault weapon is silly.
Hence why I've said, since the very beginning, what has been lost in this conversation is the distinction between types of guns and their primary uses. I didn't argue that guns should be banned, but I don't think its unreasonable that more dangerous guns require more stringent restrictions.
