Though in Canada, there are some differences. For one, the gun is modified to only accept a five-bullet clip instead of a thirty-bullet clip, so you have to reload after every five bullets, which would not be a huge problem for a mass murderer but would slightly slow such a person down and force him to carry more clips.

In addition, a person needs to pass a licensing test in order to buy one, and there's a sixty day waiting period after purchase before you get the gun.

I also read (and this is the area I know least about, not being all that familiar with guns) that the Canadian version is much more difficult to modify into an automatic weapon. Am I right in understanding that it's not all that difficult for someone to modify the standard version of such a semiautomatic into an automatic if one wants to? I'm really not all the way clear on that point, but apparently it's a lot harder to do with the Canadian version.

However, I think you're right that quite a few people don't understand the difference between a semiautomatic and an automatic. They see the word "semiautomatic" and assume it's something more dangerous than your standard gun.

Also, I think one possible argument against your hunting rifle point is that hunting rifles are, at least as far as I know, at least slower. You can still easily kill someone with them, but maybe the idea is that you can't kill quite so many quite so quickly? If the argument is about limiting the ability to use easily obtainable guns to cause mass murder without getting rid of all guns, then there's a case to be made for restricting high-capacity, quick-firing weapons without necessarily restricting lower-capacity, slower-firing weapons such as hunting rifles.

But it's very possible that I could be wrong about anything I just said, because guns really aren't in my area of knowledge.