Jillian Gilchrest

Gun violence is now the second-leading cause of death among our teens and children. Guns take the lives of nearly 100 Americans every day. Once rare, mass shootings are now commonplace.

Aside from its incalculable emotional toll, gun violence carries a substantial financial cost. The Giffords Law Center has estimated that gun violence costs the American economy $229 billion every year. And we all pay that price. Increased security at our schools, public buildings, churches, synagogues and community events as well as the lost wages and medical costs of gunshot victims — many without adequate insurance — all add to our collective economic burden.

This is why Sen. Will Haskell, D-Westport, and I have introduced House Bill 5700, an act to raise the tax on ammunition to 50 percent.

The goal of the bill is two-fold. Following the example of Connecticut’s 50 percent cigarette tax, we believe this bill will lead to reduced use and potentially less gun violence. Additionally, the increased revenue can be used to offset the aforementioned costs to taxpayers.

Since releasing a video about my bill proposal that was shared by the National Rifle Association, I have received quite a bit of feedback. By my estimates, over 90 percent of the feedback I received was from people out of state, and a lot of it was sexist hate speech. Thankfully, there were some respectful residents who made arguments that I’d like to address.

Taxing ammunition won’t stop criminals. This proposal alone won’t prevent gun violence, but it will help move us in that direction. Taxing ammunition is meant to bring in revenue to help pay for the costs associated with gun violence.

This tax punishes law abiding gun owners. The status quo punishes everyone equally. The vast majority of guns and ammunition that eventually fall into the hands of criminals were (at first) legally purchased. This tax is about fairness for all the law abiding non-gun owners.

Residents will buy ammunition across state lines. The great thing about the legislative process is that the impact of bills on revenue and resident behavior can be researched and addressed. If the tax itself needs tweaking, it can be tweaked. On the flip side, other states, dealing with these same issues, may increase taxes on ammunition to help pay for the costs that their residents incur.

The final argument, the one expressed most often by the residents of Connecticut opposed to this bill, is that this taxation will prevent people from being able to practice or shoot for sport. One solution would be to reduce or exempt the tax on ammunition both bought and used at a gun range.

If this bill goes to a public hearing, I would encourage Connecticut residents to make their voices heard and be a part of the process. Conversation helps to shape all bill proposals. I am open to respectful dialogue and look forward to a thoughtful debate. What I am not open to is inaction.

We must do all we can to prevent gun violence and pay for its costs.