# Once Republicans have killed off all the wimmens, who do we target next? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 9, 2011, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755 "2011-04-09T03:45:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/61 "2011-04-09T15:48:27Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > You’re contradicting yourself here. You think of Republicans as social conservatives who’d establish a puritanical morality on the nation-its one or the other, bub. It’s so touching to see somebody who hasn’t heard of Newt Gingrich. ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/62 "2011-04-09T15:50:35Z")
> [@Mapache](#): > > Do you have any suggestions as to just how your ideas of “imposing morality” might be expedited? Shall we force the teenaged girls with STDs to have a scarlet symbol of some sort sewn on their clothes while we defund STD treatment centers? Maybe round up all the pregnant ones, put them in camps and give the babies to good moral Republican (Catholic, I suppose, or Southern Baptist) families, who are of course famous for their enthusiasm for adopting racially “inferior” children? > > And just who is the “someone” that it’s about time they impose their morality on the rest of us? Well, obviously, if they’d just followed the abstinence only model they wouldn’t have gotten STDs at all. /sarcasm _now off._ And apparently it’s only girls and their behavior that worries Starving Artist. How _are_ they getting pregnant? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/63 "2011-04-09T17:03:23Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > …You know…HMO-sexuals. Indictment pending. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/64 "2011-04-09T17:26:27Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > No, conservatives want to create a country where [1-in-4 high school girls don’t have STDs](http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html), where high schools don’t have [1-in-8 pregnancy rates](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/10/16/report-female-students-pregnant-chicago-high-school/), and where [2nd-graders aren’t sucking each other off in the classroom](http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-22/bay-area/27043410_1_students-friday-afternoon-incidents-classroom). > > You might call that imposing morality…and you’d be right. It’s about time _someone_ was. There’s a fatal flaw in your argument. If conservatism is the answer to these problems, [why do Red states have higher divorce rates, higher STD rates, higher teen pregnancy rates](http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2009/06/29/family-values-red-states-lead-in-divorce-teen-pregnancy-and-online-porn/) than Blue States? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/65 "2011-04-09T17:50:56Z")
You are offering _facts_ in an argument with **Starkers**? What, you some kinda noob? Facts are as effective as Nerf balls thrown at a rhino. Fun fact, re prostitutes rushing to Republican conventions. A while back, the Pubbies had their convention in St. Paul (the subconcious of the Twin Cities). So they threw a social shindig at a local downtown bar and, in a fit of hipness, hired a local rock band. Named Hookers and Blow. Scientists announced that there was no detectable level of irony above the background level of post-modernist irony normally found in St. Paul, being approximately 0.17 microhicks. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/66 "2011-04-09T18:08:45Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > No, conservatives want to create a country where [1-in-4 high school girls don’t have STDs](http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html) Hm. So 3-in-4 high school girls should have STDs? I’m intrigued … ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/67 "2011-04-09T18:17:49Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > No, conservatives want to create a country where [1-in-4 high school girls don’t have STDs](http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html), where high schools don’t have [1-in-8 pregnancy rates](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/10/16/report-female-students-pregnant-chicago-high-school/), and where [2nd-graders aren’t sucking each other off in the classroom](http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-22/bay-area/27043410_1_students-friday-afternoon-incidents-classroom). > > You might call that imposing morality…and you’d be right. It’s about time _someone_ was. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > As long as law-abiding people can still get guns if and when they want, then I have no problem with regulating access to them. The trouble with allowing the government to regulate stuff is that it never stops. Government is always seeking more power and more control. I think you’d find righties a lot more amenable to certain types of government programs and regulations if only there was some sort of guarantee that they would go no further. Again, I point to the facts that Republicans have absolutely NO problems with imposing regulations on private matters, if it suits their agenda. Who was it, again, who imposed a rule that doctors could not even MENTION that abortions are an option, if the clinic gets gummint funding? Not just in the US, but in other countries? > [@scratch\_llll](#): > > My state is solidly republican with a church on every corner and has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation. Lack of education and contraception do not equate to less STDs and pregnancies. Abstinence only sex ed has been proven to increase teen pregnancy, repeated teen pregnancy (same girl getting pregnant more than once in her teens), and STDs. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/68 "2011-04-09T19:06:22Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I’m not quite clear on just how it is that women are going to die because of this, but perhaps you’re aware of some services that PP provides that I’m not aware of. … > > There are people on the Republican side of the aisle who think that Planned Parenthood fosters abortions and promiscuity and they don’t wan’t government tax dollars going to support an organization that they view as subborning murder and promiscuity. They most likely feel that if abortions and STDs go up as a result of defunding PP, then that is the fault of the people involved and theirs. At least they haven’t played a role in making that happen. > > So what it boils down to is an issue of morality, with the right being motivated by its view of what’s right and wrong and how people should behave. Now, as I said, I don’t completely agree with this and I’m sure there are other conservatives who don’t wholeheartedly agree with it either. But one thing we do know is that efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are NOT based on a desire to “kill women”, and I find it more outrageous than I can find words to express that the head of the U.S. Senate and a duly elected Congresswoman would claim that Republicans are motivated by a desire to kill women. In fact, I think anybody spreading that kind of hatred and those kinds of lies should be removed from office as they are clearly unfit to lead. I think the reason women might die via the defunding is that they will not have access to breast cancer and cervical cancer exams. My annual “well-woman” exam at a private doctor’s office (uninsured) was $275.00. At PPH it was $65.00. So now I’m kind of confused. If conservative don’t want to make life more difficult for poor women, what exactly is the reason they want to defund? Because women who go to PPH are immoral? Is that really what your are saying? Also, are you equally upset about Senator Kyl’s lie when he said that 90% of PPH’s business is providing abortions? It is not- only 3% of their services are terminations. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/69 "2011-04-09T20:01:01Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > Abstinence only sex ed has been proven to increase teen pregnancy, repeated teen pregnancy (same girl getting pregnant more than once in her teens), and STDs. Phrased a bit differently (“abstinence-only sex education has almost always been found to be less effective, or at least no more effective, than other approaches in the prevention of teen pregnancy and STDs”), this is true and needs to be borne in mind. I don’t think abstinence-only education has been shown by most studies to be negative in some _absolute_ sense, however. Ott, Mary A. and John S. Santelli (2007). Abstinence and abstinence-only education. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 19.5, 446-452. “An independent evaluation of the federal [abstinence-only] program, several systematic reviews, and cohort data from population-based surveys find little evidence of efficacy and evidence of possible harm. In contrast, comprehensive sexuality education programs have been found to help teens delay initiation of intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors.” Kohler, Pamela K., Lisa E. Manhart, and William E. Lafferty (2008). Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42.4, 344-351. “Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy […] than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education […]. Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse […], but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse […]. Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses […].” Hogben, M., H. Chesson, and S. O. Aral (2010). Sexuality education policies and sexually transmitted disease rates in the United States of America. International Journal of STD & AIDS, 21.4, 293-297. “States with no mandates for abstinence had the lowest mean rates of infection among the overall population and among adolescents. States with mandates emphasizing abstinence had the highest rates; states with mandates to cover (but not emphasize) abstinence fell in between.” Caveats, of course, particularly for the last—I smell the possibility of selectivity bias. And on the other hand: Cannonier, Colin (2009). State Abstinence Education Programs and Teen Fertility in the U.S. Working Paper 2009-14, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University. “In this paper, I estimate the impact of SAE [State Abstinence Education] funding from the federal government Title V, Section 510 appropriations on the birth rates for teens 15-17 years in the U.S. over the period 1991-2005. The results suggest that Title V SAE has led to a decline in birth rates for the targeted group of female minors. Using difference-in-differences regression models, I find for an average state, increasing spending by $50,000 per year on SAE can help avoid approximately four births to teenagers. I further find that the SAE program has a consistently significant impact among Whites but not Blacks.” Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot of good econometric literature on the subject—mostly because observational datasets don’t appear to provide information on what sort of sexual education students have received (abstinence-only vs. comprehensive). ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/70 "2011-04-09T20:04:02Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > The fact of the matter is that people die every day because of one government decision or another. Correct. And a lot of people prefer that women not die of breast or cervical cancer, or as a result of problem pregnancies that were forced to term because funding was taken away from Planned Parenthood, resultiing in loss of breast and cervical cancer screening and abortion services. Fortunately Congressional Republicans’ grandstanding for the “social issues” wing of the party is over for now. > [@Starving Artis](#): > > You might call that imposing morality…and you’d be right. It’s about time someone was. We have these folks called “parents” to whom you should address your concerns. It’s easier to demonize Planned Parenthood, I know. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/71 "2011-04-09T20:20:38Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You might call that imposing morality…and you’d be right. It’s about time _someone_ was. So let’s be clear, you are in fact advocating for an infringement on personal responsibility and accountability, yes? Or does that only count when it’s about money? ---
**Author:** ![margin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@margin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/margin)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/72 "2011-04-09T20:35:24Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Phrased a bit differently (“abstinence-only sex education has almost always been found to be less effective, or at least no more effective, than other approaches in the prevention of teen pregnancy and STDs”), this is true and needs to be borne in mind. I don’t think abstinence-only education has been shown by most studies to be negative in some _absolute_ sense, however. > Ott, Mary A. and John S. Santelli (2007). Abstinence and abstinence-only education. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 19.5, 446-452. “An independent evaluation of the federal [abstinence-only] program, several systematic reviews, and cohort data from population-based surveys find little evidence of efficacy and evidence of possible harm. In contrast, comprehensive sexuality education programs have been found to help teens delay initiation of intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors.” > Kohler, Pamela K., Lisa E. Manhart, and William E. Lafferty (2008). Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42.4, 344-351. “Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy […] than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education […]. Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse […], but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse […]. Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses […].” > Hogben, M., H. Chesson, and S. O. Aral (2010). Sexuality education policies and sexually transmitted disease rates in the United States of America. International Journal of STD & AIDS, 21.4, 293-297. “States with no mandates for abstinence had the lowest mean rates of infection among the overall population and among adolescents. States with mandates emphasizing abstinence had the highest rates; states with mandates to cover (but not emphasize) abstinence fell in between.” > Caveats, of course, particularly for the last—I smell the possibility of selectivity bias. And on the other hand: > > Cannonier, Colin (2009). State Abstinence Education Programs and Teen Fertility in the U.S. Working Paper 2009-14, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University. “In this paper, I estimate the impact of SAE [State Abstinence Education] funding from the federal government Title V, Section 510 appropriations on the birth rates for teens 15-17 years in the U.S. over the period 1991-2005. The results suggest that Title V SAE has led to a decline in birth rates for the targeted group of female minors. Using difference-in-differences regression models, I find for an average state, increasing spending by $50,000 per year on SAE can help avoid approximately four births to teenagers. I further find that the SAE program has a consistently significant impact among Whites but not Blacks.” > > Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot of good econometric literature on the subject—mostly because observational datasets don’t appear to provide information on what sort of sexual education students have received (abstinence-only vs. comprehensive). If they want to inspire abstinence, why don’t they get a nude picture of Rush Limbaugh and hang it up in the class room? That ought to make everybody of whatever gender cross their legs for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/73 "2011-04-09T21:21:46Z")
Is it just me, or is it incredibly bloody obvious that if you are called Slaughter and you’re arguing in favour of government-funded killings, you shouldn’t try to play the Nazi card? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/74 "2011-04-09T21:35:52Z")
Reid was being sarcastic, but the attempt shut down Planned Parenthood, was, in effect if not intent, an attempt to cut off cancer screening for women. The reason is that the House Republicans are pandering to their teabbager, retard base which thinks that Planned Parenthood clinics are little more than abortion abattoirs. Your average moron teabagger has no idea what Planned Parenthood actually does, so while they think they would be stopping evil, cackling doctors from mass murdering full term babies, all they would really be doing is hindering poor women from being able to get some basic medical services, including [cough cough] _contraception_ which _prevents_ unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortion. The teabaggers don’t know any better, but Boener certainly does, so his desire to hold the budget hostage to this does show an attutude of callous indifference to the ability fopr poor women to access services like cancer screenings, so Reid’s sarcastic remark was not unfair. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/75 "2011-04-09T21:57:43Z")
Reid and Slaughter are idiots. And so is anyone who listens to them. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/76 "2011-04-09T22:24:07Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Is it just me, or is it incredibly bloody obvious that if you are called Slaughter and you’re arguing in favour of government-funded killings, you shouldn’t try to play the Nazi card? Who is in favor of government funded killings again? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/77 "2011-04-09T22:25:08Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Reid and Slaughter are idiots. And so is anyone who listens to them. Says, the teabaggeringlyest teabagger that ever bagged tea. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/78 "2011-04-09T22:46:00Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Are we supposed to think that there is some sort of action that is too absurd for Republicans to do? You have already tried cutting taxes to raise revenue, eliminating jobs to reduce unemployment, advocated torture and extra-judicial trials to defend freedom, and opposed sex education to lower teenage pregnancies. 😃 > [@sh1bu1](#): > > This whole issue really became clear to me yesterday when I spoke with a woman whose recent checkup at a Planned Parenthood clinic identified potential cancerous growths that need to be biopsied. So all you conservatives can kiss my hairy ass if you think that you are being unfairly maligned. You can kiss my pregnant one as well. I’m 37 and a half week pregnant. I can barely move, barely breath and barely sleep. My back hurts. My ass hurts. My feet hurt. I have to pee about once every ten minutes. If I hear one more asshole Republican prate on and on and about the sanctity of embryos while ignoring the huge sacrifices women make to get them to term I’ll scream. Or at least try to when I can find what little lung power I have left. Really guys. Enough with the constant fucking cascade of anti-abortion bills. You should be all be down on your hands and knees that we even think about going through with a pregnancy at all. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/79 "2011-04-09T22:47:41Z")
As a conservative Republican, I’d just like to add a few points. First, we’ve been trying to kill off most of the male underclasses for years. War after war we march them off singing patriotic songs. But, it just never was enough. Women would just have more babies. So then we made sure to give every young man access to guns. We had studies indicating the cheaper and easier it was to get guns, the more young males would kill each other. This was working pretty well on the black males. For awhile, it really seemed like black men were going to wipe themselves out. Do you have any idea how much we secretly subsidized the NRA, and all those gun shows where we basically just throw guns into the crowd as party favors? Unfortunately, that barely made a dent. Why? Women. Women are having too many poor people babies. It’s imperative we increase the female death rate. Of course we keep \*our \*women wealthy and fat and pampered and botoxed so they don’t bother thinking about any of this stuff too seriously. We make sure they have the best, most patronizing I’ll give you any drug you want doctors and plastic surgeons money can buy. Then we cut off medical care for poor and middle class women, and we sell it by saying it’s not the government’s place to be all in women’s business. If quite a bit more of you lower and middle class men would just kill each other, we wouldn’t be forced to go after your women. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755/80 "2011-04-09T23:59:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > There’s a picture of Starving Artist? Is it hanging in an attic somewhere, gradually getting smarter? :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > As long as law-abiding people can still get guns if and when they want, then I have no problem with regulating access to them. The trouble with allowing the government to regulate stuff is that it never stops. Government is always seeking more power and more control. I think you’d find righties a lot more amenable to certain types of government programs and regulations if only there was some sort of guarantee that they would go no further. Righties say that all the time, but in this country you can buy a gun no matter where you are, some places easier than others. Why do we still have so much gun violence then? The answer of course is that no matter how accessible you people want guns, unless you’re prepared to force everyone to own and carry one at all times, there’s going to be much more people who don’t have guns than do. And the reward for that is they get shot by people who have guns. Having access to guns doesn’t help anybody except the occasional person you read in the news that somehow was in the right place at the right time, locked and loaded, with enough time to react and draw his weapon and stop a crime. For the vast majority of gun owners seeking to prove their weapon’s worth, that will never happen to them. It’s much more likely that they shoot or get shot by their guns [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-republicans-have-killed-off-all-the-wimmens-who-do-we-target-next/577755.md?page=5)