These are legitimate questions, not traps.
First: Why the focus on "assault" weapons? Rifles as a whole are used less often than hands and feet in homicides. Handguns, especially .22s and other little guns, are used far more often.
Second: In regards to features that many want banned, why? I genuinely do not understand the demand to ban pistol grips, forward grips, and telescoping stocks. Even if I disagree, I at least understand the desire to ban high-cap magazines. I just don't get why some of these features "need" to be banned.
My views on this subject are based mainly on three experiences:
1. I grew up in a country where few people feel the need to own a gun and getting a licence isn't easy. After two massacres, assault rifles and then hand guns were banned. Gun control doesn't completely solve the problem because weapons can still be obtained illegally by criminals but experience suggests that they usually use them against each other.
2. On my first trip to Miami, I was warned not to look at people in other cars while waiting at traffic lights or to get involved in road rage. The reason given was that many people carried guns and use them for the weakest of reasons. That was a real shock.
3. There are more guns where I live now and many are illegally owned. Gun crime seems to be on the increase in vacation areas and I think that burglaries may increase too. My Thai wife can have a gun licence and we now have a gun for protection in and close to the house and will soon buy a .22 rifle to cover the whole property. She doesn't plan to apply for a carry licence in the foreseeable future.
To give my answers to your questions:
1. Assault weapons have no use in self defence and have been used recently in massacres in the US. They are, probably, the most obvious and generally accepted type of weapon for either more control or a complete ban. I can accept that hand guns are used more often, especially in individual killings rather than mass shootings. However, I don't think that your national conscience is yet ready to accept much more control over those, even if the facts suggest that it's necessary.
So, the present focus on rapid-fire weapons seems to be a pragmatic move that's probably short of what's really required.
2. I haven't seen much about the discussion of those features that you list. Perhaps high capacity magazines are seen as too convenient for those who want to create a massacre. The other equipment is, presumably, intended to make shooting more accurate. Perhaps there is some concern about the psychological makeup of people who want that kind of equipment. As things stand in the US at the moment, tinkering with minor things like those is irrelevant.
The main issue, looking at it from my own experience, is that it's too easy in the US for people to buy weapons that have no legitimate use in civilian life and too easy for irresponsible people to get hold of a weapon at all. The freedom to carry weapons concealed under clothing for many people is also an issue and encourages two breaches of gun rules: carrying a gun loaded and drinking alcohol whilst carrying a gun.
The main obstacle to sensible gun control seems to be entrenched attitudes one one side and the lack of power on the other to bring about change. For Pete's sake, though, surely something has to change. Other countries have responded to this growing menace of gun attacks on other people so why not give it some thought?
