>Well they are different. At the end of the day here, the problem is the guns.
>The easy and obvious of addressing the semi-automatic weapons and things that turn them into fully automatic can be dealt with first tough.

I have resisted getting into this discussion and I doubt that I will change your mind, but it's obvious that you don't know much about guns and even less about killing people.
In my younger days the Army taught me about guns and killing people - guns or no guns. They then sent me to RVN for 2 years for practical application of what I had been taught. Later in life, sometimes on Army active duty and sometimes as a contractor, I taught soldiers and marines, from privates to general officers, what I had been taught and what I had learned from experience.
Without going into details which might be of benefit to the wrong person, I would say, as relates to school shootings, that:
1.Banning semi-automatic weapons would do almost no good unless you ban everything except single round weapons.
2.Turning a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon makes the weapon LESS effective. Did you know that the US military stopped buying AR15/M16 type weapons with full automatic capability 35 years ago. They do have 3 round burst capability but anything after the 3rd round was found to be basically a waste of ammunition.
3.Any "gun" solution is nothing more than a " feel good" act and is just a waste of time. The "assault weapons ban" law which included weapons based on whether it had a bayonet stud or a pistol grip or a name such as "street sweeper" is a good example of such laws.

I believe trying to solve the problem with mass killings with a gun control solution just moves the method from one thing to another and completely avoids the real causes and solutions to the problem.