Okay, thanks for explaining, but can you address the actual arguments being put forward? Particularly the point about the kinds of weapons used in those crimes not being particularly useful for self defence or hunting or even sport, and thus banning them not being too burdensome. Also the bit about what the limit is on the constitutional right, i.e. where the line is between "pea shooter" and "nuke".
OK, let me see:
People keep shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons.
No they don't. Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance.
Such weapons are not that useful for hunting,
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never been hunting. If I go by what you actually said, yes, automatic weapons wouldn't be all that useful for hunting. Semi-automatic weapons are very useful for hunting. If you're hunting migratory birds like geese or ducks, a semi-auto shotgun is much better, because, when you have an entire flock of birds coming in on your blind, you want to be able to get your shots off as quickly as possible. Same thing with varmint hunting like prairie dogs. Even with bigger game like deer, a semi-auto allows for a quicker follow-up shot if you miss with the first.
and of somewhat dubious value for self defence...
As said below, self-defense practically requires semi-auto. For home defense against a single attacker, a pump-action shotgun might suffice, but even then, semi-auto would be preferable.
Addressing your actual arguments is rather difficult, because your arguments are based around "Nobody needs automatic weapons - they're just used for shooting up schools." You make an argument based on ignorance and falsehoods, and then point out that I didn't address your points.
As for drawing the line somewhere between pea shooters and nukes - that line should be drawn by someone who actually knows what they're talking about - in other words, not you.