Mr. Aposhian makes a very good point: the bump-stock ban is a knee-jerk, window-dressing response that sounds good but is really pretty pointless.
A bump stock is a convenient way to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm, but it’s by no means the only way.
Bump-firing is as easy as hooking a finger through a belt loop. Push the firearm forward and the result is exactly the same as using a bump stock. Almost as accurate, too (which is to say not very).
From my experience, bump-firing is mostly a way to waste a lot of expensive ammunition in a very short time.
By the way, that “experience” with bump-firing came more than 40 years ago long before anyone developed a commercial bump stock.
I had a Colt AR-15 Sporter and lucked into a fair-sized lot (2,000 rounds) of post-Vietnam military surplus ammunition. A friend of mine had a 460-acre ranch with a perfect berm for shooting. I had learned about bump-firing from another friend who had served in the Air Force.
Learning how to hold the rifle takes a little bit of practice, but it’s not difficult at all.
Now for a modern-day reality check:
Stephen Paddock was firing into a crowd and he didn’t care who he hit. He could have achieved a high body count with a 12-gauge pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot.
Paddock may have spent as much as two years meticulously planning and preparing for his killing spree. He had carefully selected the rifles and equipped them with bump stocks because accuracy didn’t matter. The bump stocks were more of a time-saving device than anything else.
Ironically, Stephen Paddock and the uproar that followed actually caused a huge jump in sales of the things. As Mr. Aposhian said, before then, bump stocks were a pricey toy. After Las Vegas, the manufacturer was so swamped with demand that it had to stop accepting new orders.