Banning Bump Stocks Wont Solve Anything
Whenever the N.R.A. embraces a gun-control measure, it’s worth looking further under the hood. And, in fact, a ban on bump stocks falls into the same trap as so many previous attempts at “sensible” gun control have — it treats a symptom, but not the disease. As with the assault-weapons ban, it’s not how the gun looks that matters; it’s how it works.
While the Las Vegas massacre was remarkable for its spree of fire, it fit a pattern: Many mass shootings involve rifles designed for automatic fire for the military, the design of which has then been modified to operate as legal, semiautomatic weapons for the civilian market — the AR-15, related to the military’s M-16, being the most famous, but not the only, example.
Civilian ownership of machine guns, which fire continuously as long as the trigger is pulled, has been restricted in the United States since 1934. But their semiautomatic equivalents, which fire just once with each pull of the trigger but to a casual observer look no different from the military versions, have become wildly popular. At my local gun store Thursday, there were as many semiautomatic, military-style weapons as anything; indeed, more than traditional deer-hunting guns shaped from steel and walnut. A beautiful Brazilian over-and-under shotgun-rifle combination sat in a corner, underpriced and apparently unloved. (I personally don’t understand it; having been issued an M-16 by Uncle Sam in the summer of 1983, I cannot think of another firearm I’d less like to lug into the woods on the first day of hunting season.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/banning-bump-stocks-wont-solve-anything.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
But banning bump stocks, along with any other modification that increases the rate of fire beyond the speed at which a human can depress a trigger, very well might make a difference, especially if the other relevant factor is also addressed.
That other relevant factor is capacity. A bump fire device, or any other device that makes a weapon fire something like 600-900 rounds per minute instead of 45-60, is of very limited use when the weapon holds so few rounds that firing at such a rate means reloading literally every second, because the weapon fires more rounds per second than it holds.
And to reiterate what I've said in other threads about how and why laws intended to regulate rifles descendant from military designs can and do go awry, consider that this rifle is, under both current NY law and the most recently proposed iteration of an AWB, considered an assault weapon, even with only a 10 round capacity, and chambered in .22lr...
And the only reason that is true is because when lawmakers crafted language intended to prevent civilians from owning this...
...they banned "semi-automatic weapons having detachable magazine and one or more of: " {a list of characteristics including a thumbhole stock}.
Someone being dead set on owning something like that second rifle might reasonably raise some legitimate concerns.
Someone being defensive of the right to own the first one has entirely different implications.
What reasonable gun owners want is for it to remain legal to own things like that nice steel and walnut target/varmint rifle, limited to 10 round capacity, whether or not it has a hole for your thumb. If we would identify the things we want to ban well enough that we don't also ban things we're not trying to, the opposition would decrease significantly.
https://basspro.scene7.com/is/image/BassPro/1914761_12042605030917
This clamps onto the trigger guard of a Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic rifle.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/BMF-Activator-325651661702/about/
Fortunately, the native capacity of the rifle's magazine is 10 rounds.
Ooops! I might want a 110 round magazine!
Very useful for hunting! <not>
Now, all we need is for some creative person to put a battery powered motor on the BMF activator!
I would not want to be hit with a terrorist's Skecher!
And then it will solve nothing. 
