If we're serious about drawing distinctions between "acceptably dangerous" and "unacceptably dangerous" firearms, we must specify those distinctions in objective, measurable terms. Terms like muzzle velocity, max projectile kinetic energy, peak rate of fire, sustained rate of fire and so on, all with very clear meanings.

Meaningful laws require such clarity.

Legislation based on loose terms like "assault rifle" and "bump stock" will be nothing but yet another loophole factory.

It starts to look like an NRA strategy, expensively lobbying vague unenforceable legislation that maintains the status quo while providing political cover for politicians trying to look busy.

Bump stocks are a workaround designed specifically to exploit vagueness in the 90s legislation.

Here we are still debating what an "assault rifle" really is.

Suppose we pass a law now outlawing "bump stocks".

In five years, we'll be once again debating whether the modified contraption on the weapon of the most recent mass shooter is technically not a "bump stock".

If it doesn't involve numbers and measurements, it's not going to be workable, enforceable gun legislation.

And it will mean that we as a nation have earned ourselves a lot more avoidable troubles.