No, it is not correct that using a loophole is always legal. Law systems are not simple and absolute, and intent matters.
If doing something isn't legal, then it's not a loophole. It's just something that someone thought they could get away with if the government didn't notice.
Sounds like this was never legal in Tennessee; calling it a "loophole" isn't correct.
Both hits are the same, resulting damage/death same. Law differentiates on (proven or disproven) intent and resulting sentencing difference may be huge. Or at least should be. World and people are unfortunately anything but simple generic use cases.
Million other cases proving there are good reasons to take intent into account, even if surface for mistreatment is not small. Unjustice otherwise would be bigger IMHO.
The world isn't simple and absolute, and the law isn't a computer program.
Government doesn't just give up power like that. And they sure don't give it up over the kicking and screaming of the myriad of industries that benefit as middle men and over the kicking and screaming of the "there ought to be a law" class of useful idiots that exist for every exist of policy.
You cannot reasonably create a law that covers all situations in their entirety. Even if you could, it would become obsolete the second it's in effect
When it comes to law, "simple" and "absolute" are basically mutually exclusive.
If the law is written simply, then lawyers will pick apart even the slightest ambiguity and the spirit of the law becomes irrelevant.
If the law is absolute, then it becomes verbose in order to close the loopholes.