Much of the problem with violence in this country stems from mental illness. It's not all of it by a long shot. It's not necessarily even the majority of it.

But when it is driven by mental illness, it can be so much worse in many ways. The violence is more random, less targeted.

So a lot of us argue that we need better mental health services as a means of preventing these horrific acts. Colorado has a proposal to fund just that. So far, so good.

The problem is who will be shouldering the burden.

This November, Coloradans have several decisions to make, ranging from the next president of the United States to hyperlocal issues.

One of those issues is Proposition KK, which asks voters if they support or oppose raising state taxes by $39 million annually to fund mental health services for certain groups of people, including veterans, at-risk youth, and domestic violence survivors.

A 6.5% excise tax would be placed on gun manufacturers, gun retail stores, and ammunition vendors. The businesses would decide how they wanted to pay the tax, meaning they could either absorb it and pay it themselves or pass it along to the consumer.

Let's understand that it's not really a choice. A 6.5 percent tax is nothing to sneeze at, especially considering that guns aren't exactly inexpensive. Further, most gun stores are operating on pretty thin margins as it is. I'm not sure most of the could absorb it, even if they wanted to.

This is just a way to try and make it look like the state isn't trying to make rank-and-file gun owners shoulder the burden for this.

Yet that's exactly what's happening, and I'm not the only one who sees it.

Ian Escalante, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, disagrees with Duran. The group fights against gun control coming out of the Colorado State Capitol and supports legislation that expands gun rights in the state.

“To tax guns and ammo would be no different than putting a tax on newspapers or putting a tax on the right to assemble," Escalante said. “It's an assault on our God-given rights. It's an assault on our sacred right to self-defense.”

Escalante believes the tax would be passed along to consumers.

“The justice system should be punishing crime. Instead of punishing crime, they're just going to go ahead and punish consumers. They're going to punish people who are trying to defend themselves," Escalante said. “And now we have all these people that would want to be able to defend themselves but aren't going to now because they simply can't afford it.”

Exactly.

See, that tax will be passed on. As noted above, most of the gun stores and manufacturers couldn't absorb the cost if they wanted to, and they really don't. That means the customer is going to pay for it, just like they do for every other tax on business. With lower-income folks, though, that creates an issue because that may well make buying a gun unaffordable.

This then turns this tax into a poll tax.

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, and putting a tax on exercising any right is a poll tax.

They're trying to punish gun buyers and raise revenue for something that isn't even our fault. Most gun buyers are unlikely to benefit from the tax in any meaningful way, unlike fees for hunting licenses which then get spent on making sure there are animals to hunt in future years. Oh no, this is nothing but trying to hurt gun buyers and make it seem like if you oppose the tax, you oppose mental health funding.

It's not that, it's just that there's no reason for gun buyers to shoulder this burden on their own.

Especially as there isn't much chance of this raising significant revenue.

But when you look at the people quoted in the above-linked piece, everyone supporting this is a gun control advocate. They like that it punishes gun buyers. They don't care about the mental health aspect. They're just using that to gloss over what this is really about: Discouraging people from buying guns.

And frankly, it's wrong on every level.