You can accomplish the same thing as the bump stock by somehow hooking your hand on your belt when firing.

No way in hell our bought and paid for Congress passes a GD thing that will benefit the societythey are paid to represent.

Shot in ducks is very hard on teeth and fillings. Polite hosts put little glass containers on the table for such.

Was he loaded with exploding ammo, too?

That's the meme going around the conservative, NRA, right wing circles to defend their second amendment rights to own nuclear weapons.

I probably shouldn't be so proud of myself, but this is what I thought it was from listening to the video. I couldn't remember the name, though.
Feinstein has rushed to introduce a bill to ban them. So far 26 co sponsors. If she wrote it, I'm sure it has "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" somewhere in the fine print. If she wrote a bill about drunk driving, it would ban blue pickups or anything that could be converted to a blue pickup, where a pickup is defined as anything with a cargo capacity greater than her handbag. Don't let that woman within 100 meters of a gun control bill.
The problem with these things is that they don't make the rifle an automatic. If it did it would already be illegal as hell. It's still one round per trigger pull, and doesn't modify the "gun" (defined as the receiver). It "assists" you in pulling the trigger at 5x the speed. So it's a loophole. It's going to require very carefully crafted language to address it.
Remember, the BATF has to issue a permit to manufacture these things. If they had any relevant legislation to work with, they would have never OKed it.
The good news is that this is something that could be banned if you write the correct language, and probably shouldn't exist in the first place, it isn't a hard sell to many 2A supporters, plausibly addresses part of the actual problem, and unlike most gun control might actually do some net good.
It's not clear that there's any political upside to this for Republicans, though, and they're running the show. If they had two brain cells to rub together, they would attach this as an amendment to the suppressor bill they've been working on. They could claim that they addressed the massacre as well as getting a win for gun owners. They look good to their voters and at least have something real to talk about on the Sunday talk shows. I doubt they are that smart, though.
Of course the real problem isn't bump fire, or magazine size, or caliber, or how many guns he had in the room that he didn't use. The problem is that he was a sniper in a nearly ideal position. He had 10-15 minutes of uninterrupted fire time. While he wouldn't have been able to wound so many people (and that matters) in the time he had without this gizmo, he could have still killed dozens regardless of what he was using. If you've got some magic way of neutralizing snipers, the Army would like to hear from you. Even in our modern drone/stealth bomber/smart bomb/spy satellite war machine there is still a role for snipers, they are freaking deadly as hell and hard to defend against.
I strongly suspect after this that similar venues will have to pay to station a SWAT sniper on a roof somewhere overlooking the crowd to try to engage a shooter. And why doesn't that make me feel safer?

Accuracy is not as needed when firing into a massed close packed herd of humans distracted by a concert or other such distraction. Hate to say it, but it is there.