The pro-gun counter to that is "Well, the AWB only bans cosmetic differences. I can get the same rifle without a pistol grip and be fine".
To which any anti with a little sense would say "You're right. The current wording of the law is toothless. Let's ban all semi-autos"
I've thought about this quite a bit. But I've decided using this argument usually helps our cause.
Many people who support a ban are people (many are gun owners) who don't want to ban "normal" guns. If they learn how stupid and pointless the AWB really was -- that "assault weapons" aren't evil death machines, they're just semi-autos with scary cosmetic features -- they might move away from supporting an idiotic ban and focus more on laws keeping guns out of the hands of criminals; something I'd be willing to compromise on if they did it Constitutionally.
And if they just decide they want to ban ALL semi-autos instead, that's an extreme position; a position far too extreme to have a chance of passing (in my opinion).
Same goes for the magazines argument
"Well it wouldn't have mattered if he had 3 30rd mags or 10 10rd mags, he'd have done the same damage. Changing mags isn't hard"
"If it's not hard then why do you fight so hard for them? Why do the military and the police use them if there's no tactical advantage to be had by their use?"
I look at the magazine argument differently. Anti-gun people have a misconception that the faster you can fire a weapon, the more deadly it will be. They also don't understand that having a high-capacity magazine isn't much help when on the offensive, especially against unarmed people. However, a high-capacity magazine can be a big help when on the defensive, especially against armed attackers.
We need to educate people that by supporting a ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, they support a severe restriction on a person's right to self-defense, while at the same time they won't be doing much of anything to stop a criminal who decides to go on a shooting spree.