Well I will agree that one of us does not have a grasp on logical fallacies.

People do not NEED to know the textbook definition of an assault rifle to know that a weapon designed for maximum carnage should be regulated. You also don’t NEED to hear an accurate reference to a specific weapon to understand their argument. You know what they mean.

By outright dismissing them because they haven’t defined a term to your satisfaction, you are not engaging in good faith.

If you really were interested in discussion, you would respond to establish a standard definition and then, based on that definition, provide your counter argument.