Girls With Guns - Well Done Article In UK Magazine

wylde007 said:

So, umm, what if your "first" date is with a stalker, serial killer of some other kind of psychopath?

Way to make yourself a target.

And I can't read "homely" without it implying "unattractive" or "plain", the opposite of comely.

No, while this article isn't a deliberate hatchet-job, the tone is of questionable intent.

Click to expand...

Carrie never said that... She and the reported talked and laughed about what a first date might think and the reporter drew her own conclusion. Another "un-truth" was about them all meeting at Starbucks. The reporter wanted to and Carrie said NO. She said Starbucks already said where they stand and Carrie did not want to bring anymore "light" to that part of the issue... but the reporter being from the UK really wanted the Starbucks 'angle' in the story so apparently she improvised.

Here is the Article

http://edsfiles.us/article/girlswithguns.pdf

ed said:

Carrie never said that... She and the reported talked and laughed about what a first date might think and the reporter drew her own conclusion. Another "un-truth" was about them all meeting at Starbucks. The reporter wanted to and Carrie said NO. She said Starbucks already said where they stand and Carrie did not want to bring anymore "light" to that part of the issue... but the reporter being from the UK really wanted the Starbucks 'angle' in the story so apparently she improvised.

Click to expand...

Ed,
My daughter and another girl were photographed at a Starbucks in Arlington, I believe it was.
Craig

ed said:

Carrie never said that... She and the reported talked and laughed about what a first date might think and the reporter drew her own conclusion. Another "un-truth" was about them all meeting at Starbucks. The reporter wanted to and Carrie said NO. She said Starbucks already said where they stand and Carrie did not want to bring anymore "light" to that part of the issue... but the reporter being from the UK really wanted the Starbucks 'angle' in the story so apparently she improvised.

Click to expand...

I don't think the article said they met in a Starbucks, just mentioned the chain.

Grapeshot said:

Read it again - she is describing women as they are, not slamming anyone. Some are over weight, some a skinny, some without any make-up - that is what "normal" people are - not magazine fashion models.

That she includes statements from those opposed does NOT make the article another attack on 2A IMO. Remember the author is not "selling" OC - she is reporting on it as it relates to women and did so more than fairly.

I for one would welcome scores of such articles every month in this country. The more public exposure, the more the false fears, lies and distortions will wither under the light of truth. Still say nicely done and hope she does more.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Grapeshot, sorry friend but I think you're delusional. She did indeed not only slam American women with guns, in my opinion slammed the entire OC movement.

KansasMustang said:

Grapeshot, sorry friend but I think you're delusional. She did indeed not only slam American women with guns, in my opinion slammed the entire OC movement.

Click to expand...

Prefer to see myself as allusional and see the benefit of alliteration in the media - see the OC references as a sea of scenes full of otherwise unseen sources. The more exposure, the better.

Stated more simply, any press is good press when it reports good people doing what is legal and responsible. The discussed article, if it contains negativity, is less egregious then many I have read. Not only do I consider her target audience and therefore the fitting use of colloquial expression, but the author's intent as I perceive it - to inform UK women of something to which they are little familiar. That the writer did and I thank her for it. ymmv

More press = more exposure = more comprehension. People ARE beginning to get it. They ARE more reluctant to buy into the negative dissemination and distortion of facts and resisting following the lemmings over the cliff of lies.

Sir, I am compelled to concede. After rereading this article and reading all the comments on these pages, including your last explanation, I find that my initial judgment was knee jerk based and too quick to criticize. I still think the article in question is jaded towards OC, but as you stated, any amount of awareness for OC, given to the unknowing public, is a “GOOD” thing. I stand corrected, you are right. The perception of OC’ers put out to the unknowing public is exactly what is needed.

Semper Fi

USMC1911 said:

Sir, I am compelled to concede. After rereading this article and reading all the comments on these pages, including your last explanation, I find that my initial judgment was knee jerk based and too quick to criticize. I still think the article in question is jaded towards OC, but as you stated, any amount of awareness for OC, given to the unknowing public, is a “GOOD” thing. I stand corrected, you are right. The perception of OC’ers put out to the unknowing public is exactly what is needed.

Semper Fi

Click to expand...

We should willing accept, even embrace, all opportunities to see our efforts held up for public viewing. Light has a way of exposing the truth - it much like watching a picture develop in a photograph's dark room. The final image is often more than anticipated.

This weather worn, craggy face and pretty handgun have been exposed more than once to media scrutiny and survived the experience intact. They can take their best shot, but they are still doing exactly as we want - providing free exposure which sometimes goes national or as in this case international.

The article reminded me it was time to write another letter to Kalifornia Pizza Kitchen:

A few months ago, I read an article which mentions you've taken a stand against our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.(http://netnemesis.org/misc/UK Marie Claire July 2010 - Girls With Guns by Andreina Cordani.pdf)

I checked around, including calling two outlets, and discovered it's true.

I served in the U.S. military for 20 years. I, the President, members of Congress, and federal judges swore the same oath: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. Throughout my twenty years of service, four of my friends died in the line of duty, protecting our Constitution and the rights it confers to all of us.

I would like to know, directly from you, why California Pizza Kitchen chooses to disrepect the service and sacrifices of our soldiers, seamen, marines, and airmen, particularly when 1980 and 1990 restrictions on our Second Amendment rights lead to the sharpest increase crime our country has ever seen, while relaxations on those restricting and the subsequent increase in the exercise of our Second Amendment rights beginning in the 1990s lead to the most significant reduction in violent crime our country has ever seen.

Are you simply unaware of the facts surrounding the crime deterrence enjoyed by localities which encourage honest, law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights? For example, El Paso County, Colorado has one of the highest concealed and open carry percentages of any county in the country, yet it was just voted the 14th safest city in the nation. Coincidence?

Hardly.

I mean, really! Who would you rather have carrying firearms in your store? Honest, law-abiding citizens who're well-trained in their use? Or violent thugs who would love to rob your store, possibly resulting in the injury or death of one of your employees?

If you have even an ounce of rationality, you'll favor the honest, law-abiding citizen. The only thing we ask in return for the privalage of frequenting your establishment is that you respect the hard-earned Constitutional rights and freedoms for which so many of have fought, and for which all to many have died.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely...

I thought the article was well done, and in good taste. I must admit though, that on 1st reading of the "...homely women...", I was a bit shocked that the writer would insult her subjects so blatantly right up front. Of course, I neglected to allow for the "King's English".

I didn't see anything negative about OC. The statement that "..some of my coworkers think I'm a gun nut..." is a statement about the reality that most of us encounter among our own acquantences (and often report about on here). I don't think the author was trying to sell the concept of OC, just report on the phenomenon.

Kudos to the women who participated.

Tess said:

FWIW - "homely" in England is approximately equivalent to "homey" in the US -- meaning "like home" - warm, welcoming, nurturing ....

Click to expand...

My branch of the family is the only American branch. All the other branches still live in Scotland, England and Canada. So I called a few of them. Homely in England and Scotland means exactly the same as it does here. My 85 year old aunt in Middleton England replied "Oh dear, they must have been quite unattractive for her to say that". And that was without me asking if there was a difference. And "homey" means to have a comfortable place of abode.

So the article author did state her own bias of looks. Futhermore, after reading the article, you will notice that she printed many references to people doing illegal and deadly shootings but did not reference one single actual use of a person defending themselves from a bad guy with a firearm. Just the women themselves speaking hypothetically. How hard would it have been for her to read a copy of the NRA's "The Armed Citizen" to get stories from those who defended themselves? This article was clearly to me, a biased report on American women who carry firearms. Plus she ended the article on a clearly anti-gun note.