Yeah, sure, if you say so, but IMO, the pro gun movement (which I am a member) needs to be more honest than this. Those other characteristics are much more than "cosmetic". They are actual improvements in the weapon's effectiveness at killing people. At some point we need to change the conversation away from the "The AR-15 and other's like it is just the same as Grandpa's old gun" argument and towards the facts and the true meaning of the Constitution.
Fact- The AR-15 is nearly as good of a killing machine as the M-16. Automatic fire is used mostly for suppressing fire. More often than not, carefully aimed shots get the kill. Fact- The Constitution is about arming the people with the means to counter their government if need be. The AR-15 is a good match for the M-16. Fact- AR-15s and similar "assault rifles" are not used in many homicides, or gun crimes. Fact- Domestic terrorists can get easy access to the AR-15 and it's popular with them.
These are issues that need to be discussed. To say that the AR-15 is just a regular ol' gun, nuthin' to see here, move along... is disingenuous. It is not your grandpa's gun. Rather we should be emphasizing the reasons we should have the AR-15 and why a ban is not needed.
fact: improvements made to the "AR-15" type platform have improved the reliability of the rifle, and accuracy. (for example, adding weight helps in shooting competitions but those stock weights and forearm weights would never ever be added to an M-16 intended for combat). (another example, match triggers are an improvement to the "AR-15" type platform but would not last long in combat conditions)
fact: baseball bats are used more often than any form of AR-15 to kill and injure people.
fact: My Bushmaster was designed to be an accurate rifle for shooting competitions.
fact: Although millions and millions of firearms have been sold in the USA, gun deaths have remained relatively flat. and the sad reality is that suicides make up about half of firearm deaths.
"Domestic terrorists can get easy access to the AR-15 and it's popular with them" - well, to that I ask: so what? if the AR-15 wasn't available, domestic terrorists would use something else, like pressure cookers, pipe bombs, or box cutters. Oh wait, they already have used those. It is completely irrational to think that eliminating all AR-15s would stop domestics terrorism (or even slow it down).
I believe that it is NOT incumbent on gun owners to justify why we need any firearm. I believe it is incumbent on the anti-gun <deleted> to justify restricting my constitutional rights.
I do agree honesty is needed in the discussion. Sadly, honesty from the anti-gun crowd is rare. and even more sadly, ignorance seems to be their preferred approach.