Leo Karpinski: I quite agree with you on rushing to new laws when new laws are not needed.  In this case, for instance, a new law is not likely needed or called for.  What 'is' needed is a change in definitions.  With a simple change, weapons previously defined as a ​semi-automatic with the addition of a 'bump-stock' would then become a fully automatic weapon and thus fall under the restrictions of any fully automatic weapon (including the required $200 a year tax stamp).  When you factor in the definition changes coupled with the fact that such weapons become horribly inaccurate to shoot, the problem would likely disappear.