We need more context... The argumentative correction on the term assault rifle is often used as semantic argument to dismiss vital facts in a subject. For instance, if someone calls a semiautomatic AR-15 an assault rifle incorrectly, but does so in describing it in the context of 'this assault rifle killed 16 innocent people' it isn't what you're calling the weapon that matters. It's what the weapon did. Any semantic argument is just a distraction from reality. The names of things do not matter in this situation. Any pedantry about weapon terminology is moot, everyone understands death, and that's what's being discussed. Now if the subject is 'are assault rifles more dangerous than hunting rifles' then yes, clear distinction of each item must be drawn. The names only matter so much as labels for their strict definitions. The same could be said for any in depth discussion about mechanics, history, culture, etcetera surrounding weapons. So if you said a weapon used wasn't an assault rifle, because you were trying to change the subject to distract from a wrong doing, then yes, you're at fault. What you were doing was it's own form of censorship called obfuscation. You make sure the actual subject isn't talked about because you intentionally make the conversation about something unrelated. It's not as blatant of censorship as outright banning someone, but it is as effective at stoping someone from talking about what matters. We've seen this form of censorship against all manner of protests and conversations, making the subject about how they're protesting or specific words or terms they use instead of what they're actually saying. This is only done by people who don't have a real argument. They have to nitpick to distract from the discussion.