I'm not arguing that, that's simple fact, but the argument now is how do we justify bump stocks and allowing people to fire guns as fast as machine guns, which are no longer allowed to be registered by civilians?
The line when it comes to guns in the US is machine guns and suppressors. We can educate people about the benefits of suppressor deregulation, but we will never be able to change the public's view on machine guns. When you say machine guns, the mental image of machine guns is Chicago gangsters in the Depression gunning each other down.
You can thank Hollywood for that.
The line that's being pushed now is semi auto rifles with detachable magazines. That line must never become the same as that of machine guns because high capacity magazines in a gun is the best defense tool a person can own.
When someone is attacked in their home they're not going to have the time or mindset to grab another magazine to reload. So, if they're limited to 10 rounds and there are 2 or 3 people in a home invasion, when their gun runs dry, they're screwed. When a mass shooter plans an attack, they're going to strap themselves down with 10 round magazines or they'll use illegal magazines. They'll still reload just as fast as they do with 20 or 30 rd mags.
So, a bumpstock is one thing and it's a rather useless thing for most of us. Why defend something so useless when in return something useful could be gained?