I get it. Just a pet peeve. You bring up the '94 ban which is indeed torturous, and I would argue further, didn't actually address the characteristics of "assault weapons" that make them more deadly. But the characteristics that they ultimately settled on are semantics, and without arguing semantics no legislation will actually get put forward. It also lends more credibility to your position, and while you clearly know your stuff I can't say the same about the author of the linked article.

But we both want to try to eliminate this problem, which is the dramatic uptick in the number of mass shootings across America in recent years. And obviously AR-15-derived platforms are, like you said, disproportionately represented in these shootings. Of course, more than half of the legislators in America today are part of a party opposed to any new restrictions on firearms, so that may be Step 0. And after that, we have options to ban, restrict, and disincentivize, but the approach will have to be multi-pronged. Speaking from anecdote, a majority of gun owners are okay with universal background checks, a significant minority are okay with a feature-specific ban, and a small minority would consider a buyback program. I don't know any gun owner today that supports a blanket ban, like the UK and Australia.

A Mini-14 looks different from an AR-15, but it shoots the same round and has the same magazine capacity options. And if we get sloppy about semantics then the only difference we will make is that the next shooter's weapon will have wood furniture and a rifle grip.