Legislating a 50 percent tax on ammunition to decrease gun deaths in America is like forcing McDonald’s to double the price of a Whopper to prevent obesity.
While it’s admirable that State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, D-Conn., wants to decrease gun deaths in America, she has sponsored a bill that, if passed, would have just that effect.
Gilchrest tweeted that “if increasing the tax on ammunition can prevent just one death, it’s worth it.”
Every day, hundreds of Americans are killed with guns. @NRA, I’m interested in preventing gun violence. If increasing the tax on ammunition can prevent just one death, it’s worth it. #Enough #GunSense https://t.co/mrtktIxnaT
— Jillian Gilchrest (@Jilchrest) February 5, 2019
But Gilchrest’s effort to decrease gun violence by taxing ammunition demonstrates a poor understanding of the issue. Although military and law enforcement would be exempt from the law, it is an attempt to infringe on a person’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the following is true as it relates to gun violence: Violent crime is down. Most gun crime is committed with an illegal firearm, not a legal one, anyway. Furthermore, people who own more guns do not commit more gun crimes, and, in fact, they usually use them for lawful purposes like hunting and self-defense rather than crime.
Self-defense is not only a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but it is also one many Americans choose to exercise regularly. Statistics say anywhere from 30-45 percent of Americans legally own a firearm. Stories of mothers and the elderly saving their lives or the lives of others with the use of a firearm abound. Hiking a tax on ammunition does not directly keep people from gun violence because guns aren’t the culprit, and often, guns save lives.
What’s more likely is that a 50 percent increase on ammunition would keep people, particularly low-income gun owners, from being able either to purchase what they need for adequate self-defense, or to practice safely with their firearm. Going to a range and performing target practice is the only safe, reliable way to know if you’re comfortable with a firearm and able to use it appropriately when needed.
Plus, low-income people often live in areas where there is increased violence and robbery. The Bureau of Justice Statistics show sometimes people living at or below the poverty level experience “double the rate of violent victimization.” A bill like this, which might keep low-income gun owners from purchasing the ammunition, could inhibit the very people who need to protect themselves from buying what they need to do so.
It’s nearly impossible to know how much ammunition the average, legal gun owner needs to feel safe or practice with their firearm, nor should they have to ration ammunition. While Gilchrest’s bill might have been proposed with good intentions, it demonstrates a lack of knowledge about gun violence and respect for Second Amendment rights and those who regularly exercise them.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
