I think this is getting semantical, god-killing bullets aren't regular bullets otherwise why clarify they can kill gods that?
And you are right about how writers handle her like she's a chore than something exciting. But I still do not understand this insistence on her being harmed even potentially killed by regular old lead bullets... You'll get moments like in Priest's JL run or anything that plays on this singular tangible weakness a writer can use and then people get upset and blame writer? Newsflash, it's the only thing on paper a writer has to use easily like Superman and kryptonite. Diana getting shot or harmed by bullets are all bad moments because this character has a bad weakness, and most writers aren't going to dive into her history to know that. But guess what I'm not blaming the writer on this one anymore, I'm blaming the shite weakness. It gets ridiculous having this pop up every now and again, "oh in this issue will Diana survive the m1911 gunshot wound she received from joe lunchbox as he makes his escape from the bank..."
People act like making her bulletproof is going to destroy everything this character is and it's like wow, do you even pay attention to all the other shite that happens. This one thing, this pointless weakness that was put on her for no reason, people are finally done with it, and suddenly half this board loses its mind when people say 'hey, let's give this character some vulnerabilities that make some sense'.
I can by Martian Manhunter being weak to fire, sometimes it's psychological other times it's legit just fire, guess what, bullets still don't mean anything to him. Aquaman, despite how many times he punches Superman or Diana or whoever else he still isn't as powerful as Diana, guess what he's bulletproof. Batman even uses bulletproof armor in his suits. So why Diana? I have never heard of a good reason for Diana to have a specific vulnerability to bullets ever, it's probably not going to start now but hey, I'd love to hear it.