Vermont Governor Claims To Be Open To Other Gun Control Measures

AP Photo/Cheryl Senter, File

When he vetoed a bill requiring a 24-hour waiting period, Vermont Governor Phil Scott argued that he’d already passed gun control and was of the belief that it was time to look into the roots of what caused violence and suicide. It was a bold statement and one I applauded at the time.

I’ve long advocated for delving into the roots of violence itself and Scott’s comment was heartening, to say the least.

Apparently, he didn’t really mean it.

“As I’ve shown, and you’ve reported on,” Scott told reporters, “gun safety is an area I’m willing to advocate for and support, which is not something I believe any other governor in Vermont’s history can say.”

And Scott said he’s open to passing yet more restrictions on gun ownership in the future. Last year Scott convened a “Community Violence Prevention Taskforce.” According to Scott, the panel recently delivered a draft report to the governor.

“To be clear I still need to review this report, but I know it does include further gun safety measures, which I will take a serious look at,” Scott said.

Scott declined to say what those “gun safety” proposals consisted of, though he said they do not include a waiting period for gun purchases.

Well, doesn’t that just give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

There are days when I think I’m too cynical, then something like this happens and I realize I’m not nearly cynical enough. Never trust an anti-gun politician when he said he’s done enough damage.

A lack of gun control isn’t the problem. It never has been.

The problem is that some people are going to do terrible things regardless of what tools are available. More than that, though, the people most inclined to do terrible things will continue to get guns regardless of what the law says.

I mean, they’re criminals. By definition, they don’t. Follow. The law.

Yet if we could figure out how to prevent them from becoming criminals, there’s no need for gun control, nor is there any risk of them using another weapon.

The truth is, if you give a law-abiding citizen a rocket launcher, he won’t hurt a soul with it, but a violent felon intent on harming someone else will use a rock if that’s all he can get.

Laws against murder have been insufficient to stop murder, as have the laws against rape, robbery, and pretty much every other crime out there. Why would gun control suddenly stop criminals from getting guns? We’ve outright banned things like cocaine and heroin, yet how is the Drug War going? We have incredibly tight restrictions on opioid medications, yet we have an opioid epidemic. So just how would new gun laws stop anything?

Frankly, I thought Scott was done. I thought he’d recognized that he’d done enough damage to his state. I was wrong. Clearly.

Apparently, he wants to empower still more criminals while making things harder for law-abiding citizens, all in the name of making some people feel like they’re actually doing something.

Nov 26, 2021 10:30 AM ET