Exactly. If the Vegas shooter used a plain Jane AR15, the focus and the heat, so to speak, would be on "assault weapons of war." Because he used a bump stock, that's the low hanging fruit they went after. If the shooter used a Ruger Mini14 with a 20-round mag, they would have tried to ban "high capacity magazines" and .223 and 5.56 ammo. If he used bolt action rifle, the push would be for red flag laws with lout due process, universal background checks, gun registration, etc. All of the above that the anties would have gone after would have been spun so that the "ambivalent" citizens who don't own guns, don't know much about them, and care much about them would STILL think that gun owners were "unreasonable" for not supporting these "common sense" gun control laws and legislation.

Heck, I hear my liberal family members who know nothing about guns other than what mainstream media presents to then complain about and think gun owners are crazy and it's insane that we own and are allowed to have 100 rounds of ammo when it's brought up in the news. They think it's crazy that anyone would have more than one or two guns. When they see 5 firearms and 100 rounds of 22lr ammo sprawled out on a table for a law enforcement and media photo op, they think that's an arsenal and enough ammo to take out a small city. They think all of the above is just as crazy as bumbstocks and binary triggers because that's how it's portrayed in the media. Giving up our rights to placate those who hate guns or are willfully ignorant about them, aka useful idiots, is a fools errand that will lead up closer and closer to a complete gun ban.