The Bump of Bump Stocks

I read an article called "A Year After The Las Vegas Shooting, Congress Still Hasn’t Banned Bump Stocks" in The Washington Post, written by the Editorial Board. The editorial articulates the need for the ban of bump stocks and mentions the importance of gun control in general. It uses the statistics of the Los Vegas shooting to invoke fear in the reader. The article also uses loaded language to elicit an emotional response about the shooting when it says "The mass shooting — the worst in modern U.S. history — brought attention to the bump stocks the shooter used to effectively convert his rifles into automatic weapons, enabling him to spray more than 1,000 rounds in 11 terrible minutes." The last phrase in that sentence "11 terrible minutes" is intended to invoke a sense of fear and remorse. Tactics like these are unlikely to work on people who are already against gun control. That sentence is also the only mention of what a bump stock does. The editorial would be significantly more effective if it gave a small explanation of what a bump stock actually is. The article assumes that the reader already knows what a stock for a gun is, or assumes that they don't care. Many pro-gun-control advocates know little about guns, making their arguments seem less credible.  Their mention of general gun control weakens their argument because it loses focus on the issue of bump stocks. Their mention of general gun control reaffirms the fear of anti-gun control advocates, that gun regulations will lead to the loss of their rights to own guns. The article would be vastly improved by sticking to the main issue, and a short description of bump stocks.