I bet I shoot better than Dr. Adams.

I used to read Mike Adams' columns from Townhall pretty much every time he posted one. I found them funny, and a refreshing change from the rabid, militant feminism verging on man-hating evangelical lesbianism on the campus where I got my MA.

Just after my imp was born, I found myself short on time between juggling my class, helping a colleague with his grading, and baby care (as if you guys who've read my blogs for long can tell). So, I gradually stopped reading the opinion columns. Stopped that long before stopping reading the news when I was pregnant with the pixie.

In any case, I went to Townhall today, just on a whim to see what-all was being said about Barney "You can't fire me! I quit!" Frank, and found an Adams column about guns. I thought, "He likes guns, likes shooting, and is usually a fun read. This should be good."

Yeah. About that. He was a good read three years ago. I thought he knew a lot about guns four years ago, before I got into shooting. My opinions have changed. Because of this article, and the way he's so concerned and condescending (and totally ignorant) about what women should carry.

I have nothing about his first choice--Smith & Wesson J-Frame Revolvers--except that I don't care for revolvers. They feel bulky, the cylinder makes it feel front heavy, and I hate the angle of the grip. For others that like revolvers, they're great.

I do take issue with this: "For women, I strongly urge the Model 638. Less recoil, but still enough stopping power. There is no need to drop down to a .380. The 38 has enough power and is both light enough and concealable enough for most women."

Really? Really? Are you seriously suggesting that a light .38 is a good, controllable gun for a woman to carry? I have an airweight .38, and if that were what I was carrying when I got into a hairball, my first inclination would be to throw the gun because it kicks so hard I wouldn't want to shoot it!*

His second choice has the same sexist BS. I don't personally care for Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, or any of the other striker-fired square chunks of polymer and steel. I really don't like the ones that require the trigger to be pulled for takedown--too much potential for NDs. For those that like them, great. However, "Women may want to opt for the 9mm version with less recoil."

Again...really? Dude, I routinely carry a full-sized 1911 in .45. I have less issue with recoil with that gun than I do the airweight .38. Stop stereotyping, or I might have to start shooting back with the insults. And, I think, I might well do a better job.

His third choice I have some major issues with. I do not think a Taurus Judge is a good gun for anything but "SNAKE!" country, when you're out fishing or hiking.

Next, the S&W 629. Again, no major issues, with the gun, and he's actually not sexist with it! He is, however, dumb as a box of rocks: "With a Judge under the seat and a Model 629 in the trunk there is little that can come your way that you cannot handle." Why in the hell would you carry something wildly inaccurate/underpowered in the car, and keep the good one in the trunk?

Last, the Remmington 870. Good choice. Good gun. Idiot's preference is the Tacti-cool version. No big deal. No, the jaw-droppingly stupid mindset is displayed here:

"Generally, all you have to do is rack the pump once and the intruder leaves the premises. The sound of a pump shotgun is unmistakable. All you have left to do is clean the burglar poop off the floor afterwards. Generally speaking, that’s better than raising an argument of self-defense. That can only happen if you find yourself on trial."

Okay, where to start on that one...

1. Dude, do not depend on the hopped up meth-head Occupidiot being sober enough to recognize the sound of a pump action shotgun being put into battery. Nor smart enough to run when they hear it.

2. Poop off the floor? What do you have, naked burglars? Generally, the poop will stay in their clothes, and won't make a mess for you to clean up.

3. Most of us live in a free state where the law permits us to shoot someone who breaks into our house without having to worry about proving self defense. The burden of proof (that we weren't acting in self defense) lies with the other side of the argument. And worrying about facing trial by twelve will see you, your family, and your pets being carried by six.

I get the impression from the tone of the article that I know more about guns than Dr. Adams does, even though I don't have a PhD.

*I wouldn't really throw a gun at a goblin unless it was empty and I had no reloads. But the .38 makes it tempting.