Regardless of whether or not your definition truly captures what an "assault weapon" means, you've only defined its use for a military purpose, fighting similarly armed enemies at long range. That is not a civilian use. And yet, you and the NRA fight to prevent them from being banned from civilians. Even though you allege they're less useful for mass shootings and cannot identify a single civilian use for them, so banning them shouldn't concern you. Probably because you and the NRA are full of shit about them being less useful for mass shootings....hmm....
A handgun is
-Easier to conceal -Can carry a lot of them -Easier to handle in a chaotic situation.
The only benefit I see to an assault rifle is that it is somewhat more effective at range. But the concealment is far more dangerous because it allows you to get into a more advantageous position before starting your attack.
BTW: Do not ever ever EVER let the government ban something just because "You don't need it."
Make them thoroughly justify every single thing they want to ban
Can you justify a need for civilians to need assault weapons? No, there is absolutely no logical reason for civilians to need assault weapons, as they're designed for one purpose: to kill as many people as possible. ---
Fall down, go boom... Life is like a box of chocolates. Most of it is crap.