Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.
I wouldn't want to strain my wrists by firing either above one handed.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Even the extremely unlikely. But the chances for that kind of scenario have already been noted as being very low.
Do you know what is tragically funny in your statement? That you actually do not see how your beliefs in regards to this issue, how you present yourself, is impinging on your country's ability to develop gun control laws.
Oh hey, look, this is you not poo pooing on studies....
Since you have declared that the studies are wrong, then I am sure you are able to provide a more accurate study on defensive use of guns in the US. "Hello? Have we not been there many times?" in regards to you backing this up?
You can thank your buddies in the NRA for that.
It is interesting, that medical bodies, scientific bodies, study this and you have dismissed them repeatedly. I guess it comes down to those studies not using the language you are comfortable with, because from where I am sitting, you have an issue with anyone discussing gun control or even alluding to it, if it is not you. Since, you know, you are the leading proponent of gun control and all that jazz.
You have railed at me repeatedly, even over the ones you say are your recommendations.
Hence why I think that your issue is with anyone else who attempts to discuss gun control. You can't stand it. And it's not just you. There is a faction of posters here (who aren't you, obviously) who only crawl out of the wood work when the subject of gun control comes up. While you obviously post in other threads, you seem incapable of having a rational discussion without dismissing studies, opinions, people, even when they agree with you, because *gasp* those people dare to be for gun control. So those people are automatically wrong, even when they say what you claim to support.
It's astonishing really.
Aaaand we're back to the "your faction" crap.
What a surprise.
Yep. That's right. I and everyone else you discuss gun control with, fails in the honesty and good faith stakes.
Not "the studies" - a couple posted here, obviously wrongheaded and misleading - not just "declared", btw, but for reasons I have gone into in some detail several times (they keep getting reposted).
As I have also repeated many times, often with reasoning and details and examples, clearly and in plain English you have no excuse for misrepresenting, we lack good studies on that topic.
Hence my repeatedly favoring research and so forth, explicitly.
For reasons made perfectly clear, and incontrovertibly so. They are garbage, the ones you point to - bad arguments from screwed-up data. This is not my fault - you can't post garbage and bad statistics and claim support from "studies". That's not how it works.
btw: I have also posted similarly about studies promoted by the "other side", including quite recently my bemused finding of an actual competent correction of a pro-gun use of statistics in a bullshit correlation study. My argument, remember, is that this is a "bothsides" issue - you and yours are on one side posting garbage stats, the NRA is on the other posting garbage stats, and more of this is what I recommend: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...fficult-in-the-us.160567/page-46#post-3515861
(And not just because the guy brings published authority to my repeated observation that aggregation by State invalidates most interpretations of gun data, although I did find that satisfying).
That's not true.
And the innuendo of "you say" is typical nasty from "both sides" - they can't help it, you can't help it, even after the earlier linking and all those earlier posts you forgot about after slandering at the time. It's a reflex with you now. You can no more post honestly and in good faith than a pig can fly.
And so repeating shit like that leads to shit like this:
Quit dealing in lies, slanders, and misrepresentations, and you will be able to see more clearly who my "issue" is with. Right now you haven't got a clue.
It starts with the people, like you, who think they can deal in utter bullshit for a good cause, with political power at stake. People who think adherence to liberal principles, the norms of reason and good faith, is a moral failing in this matter, and slander those who do accordingly. Bad faith dealers in obvious bs - but it's the other side (and everyone not with them is on it) to blame for their political struggles.
->People of reason and good will very often refuse to vote for their politicians, their causes, even if they agree with their ostensible preferences, because they are dangerously irrational and therefore threatening. They can't be trusted with power, because they don't answer to reason. When people promoting a cause behave as you do here, they lose the support of lots of reasonable human beings - not all, some flip the coin tails, but some. Enough.
In the matter of gun control, uniquely, we find a dominant and influential faction of these irrational, scary, authoritarian bullshitters using lots of air on "both sides". Normally, there's liberals backing reason on one side, and the wingnuts being wingnuts on the other. This particular cause, it's almost an even split of whackodom.
Yep. And it's going to screw up the midterms if it can't be deflected somehow.
And "everyone" is back. Frogs in all pockets.
After which we will ponder the mystery of why the US can't get sane gun control - no solution gains traction - even though a large majority of its citizens - an actual "everyone" - wants it.
One of my favorite reasons for keeping my personal info off these forums is that sooner or later some guy like you will base his entire argument on some assumption about me that reveals the basis of his foolishness.
City folk don't know about guns?
City folk are both the perps and the targets of most of these gun homicides. Your woods full of scary bobcats you need an M16 to handle is a walk in a park.
Except you posted your foolishness (30 round magazine to "defend against predators") and you guessed mine (no time actually threatened by predators). And you guessed wrong.
So we ain't exactly even.
And what I meant was that short - to a degree, there's a minimum - was legal in Minnesota. It's modification that is illegal - regardless of final length.
A flawed law. An example of the need for better input in the writing of gun control laws.
So we have logic from you - predator defense - that would establish something around 4-6 round magazines. And we have a preference from you for more like 30 rounds, without real logic but an obvious role at gun ranges and such, for entertainment. And such preferences count - this is a representative government.
On the other hand, we have reason to forbid 30 round magazines, in the accounts we have of spree shootings in which the occasional pause for reload has saved many lives (the recent Waffle House shooting, for example), and the absence of role other than such mayhem and/or whim. By logic, then, we can make a case for single shot magazines on that ground.
But single shot is not adequate for self defense, hunting, and many other roles.
We're back to 4-6. But here two factors: preference counts, as noted, and there is that militia adequacy to consider. So we have the makings of a useful, non-arbitrary, non-random, negotiated number - how about 8-10?
I never said that. I said
that means that IMHO, just because a city person occasionally visits a tree stand or camps in an area that is patrolled by LEO's or park rangers doesn't mean they're conversant with living rural or very remote.
that would be like saying that because one can afford a two car garage then one is knowledgable on the pains of being rich, powerful and incessantly pestered by the paparazzi. Or that walking to the local grocer is the same as hiking up Everest. or that owning a car makes you able to drive like Mark Martin.
There isn't much you can do if you're charged by a bear - when this happens, for whatever reason it does happen, you can lay down and play dead, make yourself look larger and stand your ground Ithis includes shooting in defense... or "blazing away"), or run like hell and hope for the best (this includes climbing). What you do depends entirely on the situation, your mindset, training and what you have available at the time - example: You're not going to shoot a walking stick.
you can say I "guessed wrong". You can say you've been charged by a predator. the fact is, you seem to think that all people are like you in this regard and we're not. you chose to consider that "30 round magazine to "defend against predators" " is somehow foolishness. you specifically state that above. Not all predators are four legged, and not all are charging bears.
I will specifically say 30 round magazines are effective functional means to carry ammunition that can be easily accessed and utilised during a time of duress wihout the additional stress of repeatedly changin magazines, especially considering high-stress situations. You think limiting magazines will somehow affect the criminal element.
so I would ask:
Will you then advocate for a universal search & siezure act to remove legally obtained and owned magazines historically purchased?
What about the criminal element - how will you enforce this with them? (this is the current problem we have right now with our laws)
What about the internet and it's easily obtained information showing people how to modify magazines? (see also current law and BATFE)
If you're going to make a limit, you're making the limit for the strict purpose of limiting the law abiding citizen only. that isn't conjecture: it's fact.
there isn't even any evidence out there showing where this is an effective means of controlling the problem we have... more to the point, when people talk about other nations, not one single person is able to isolate that gun control is the effective means for curbing [x] problem as there have been numerous other laws that may well be the cause of the [x] problem they attribute to said gun control.
1- I've had the horrible luck to have lived in cities. I know a little about them. I don't like them and choose not to live in them for the very reason you've mentioned: you're a walking target if you're unlucky enough to be lower income or ignorant of the local customs (like where not to walk or gang activity). But that was places like Tokyo, Frankfurt, Chicago, Miami, Tampa, San Antonio, LA and Seattle, and usually because the military didn't give me a choice.
2- woods can be far, far scarier to the uninitiated. We regularly have to rescue the weekender because of [insert reason for random stupidity or drunken idiocy]. People fear being eaten more than being mugged.
3- The city is one of the best reasons to advocate for the right to bear arms, as noted by Colion Noir. A point he makes is one that I've repeated for years.
4- Existing gun laws are effective when enforced.
actually, no. it's not flawed because of the method typical to home modifications which not only alter the barrel length but the shape as well. Most common home modifications use a vice or similar mount which deforms the barrel. This is easily identified by ballistics when they can retrieve enough of a round as it deforms the round as it leaves the barrel -or- when you see the dispersal pattern on a target. This can also cause catastrophic problems if it's too deformed, especially when you fire a slug or it's blocked.
Never once have I stated that 4-6 round magazines is logical due to predator defense. Nor will I. You are the one that assumed what I meant.
source. One instance doesn't make it factual. a few instances in gun statistics that reach tens of thousands makes that claim silly.
More to the point, I still want to see where assault weapons are the preferred choice for homicide.
Perhaps a 30 round magazine is overkill for a M&P (that isn't my opinion, but some may view it as such) but a 20 round mag is not, IMHO, and I will argue that point strictly for the purpose of self-defense against predators of all kinds, especially human. And you can quote that part if you like. Unlike the assumption of 4-6 rounds.
you are at 4-6
I am at 15-20, depending on original manufacture specifications for production and specific weapon type (in this case, Handguns. for Rifles, I prefer different types but I have never owned anything over 30 rounds - this is not a magazine capacity cap or advocacy of limitation, mind you, just a statement of personal ownership).
IF we bring in the argument of the public potential to be called to a Militia, which is still probable considering the selective service
THEN the magazine restriction should be 20 rounds for handguns and 30 rounds for rifles (similar for Military and LEO's - though not necesarrily standard or regulated as such - these figures are based upon circa 1990's thru 2002 common use for US Army ADA and LEO's service weapons though it was not uncommon to carry original spec magazines in LE, such as the 17 round 9mm mag)
That covers human and non-human predation as well as sport, though again this will be the legal limit for law abiding citizens while licensed dealers (etc) can legally own additional capacities as regulated by the gov't, much like current laws and restrictions.
IF you want to argue from Logic then you would have to find a way to mitigate the human biases during studies on this type of hot topic and control the funding to insure that bias isn't determined by influential and rich advocates for a political or other agenda
THEN you would have to find a way to determine what actions have an effect on what results in society
you would also need to pour money into programs to mitigate these additional factors
Sociology and psychology would be heavily involved
the problem is highly complex so there would be a lot of areas involved that we may not be able to currently imagine
and all that would have to be tested in small controlled experiments.
more on this: this, more than anything else, demostrates the ineffectiveness of gun control and the need to actually enforce existing laws.
if the LEO's and family actually enforced the law, there would never have been a waffle house shooting.
the shooter was given his guns back by the father who was directed by LEO's not to give them back to the son (per CNN). as such, this makes the father complicit in the crime, IMHO, and I hope he is charged as an accessory as his direct actions were responsible for the shooting.
Your logic had you well under 10, remember? "Defense against predators".
Those are for modern military, not militia.
A completely irrelevant, left field comment you have now repeated. So what?
I deductively reasoned from your declared premises. Hence the word "logic", rather than "assumption".
Yes, I pointed out that a 30 round magazine is foolish for self defense against predators - you were the one who chose charging bears to illustrate, but any predator would do as well - or even something actually dangerous, like a moose.
The most blood I've seen from animal attack was from a goshawk nailing a guy. But if a predator attacks you, the first three or four rounds are the only ones you're going to able to need.
Another reason to limit magazine sizes.
Yes, I do. It will slow down spree shooters.
That's a good idea. Also, we need a couple of improvements and new laws (universal background checks, say).
And impeding the criminal. That's how laws work.
If you are too highly stressed to change a magazine, possession of a 30 round clip just enables bad decisions. What is your fantasy life providing for you now - ad hoc military skirmishes?
you're making the assumption that I supported your logic
please quote where I stated that I would support well under ten rounds based upon "Defense against predators" logic
it's also for modern Guard and Reserves, therefore should be actively used by Militia
the people are the source for a Militia, and a Militia is "is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need"
as such, if called upon in a time of need or crisis where Militia is required, then the Militia should be able to defend the nation as best possible.
this, more than anything, is cause for logically supporting high capacity magazines, especially under the arguments of the gun control movement WRT their interpretations of the 2A.
it's not irrelevant. it's very cogent, and explained
Hmm... lets see
so, its not deductive at all. my specific replies to you were not of advocacy or support for anything less, with the above post ( http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-gun-control-solution-perhaps.160629/page-24#post-3516348 ) as the exception
so you keep claiming
a claim based upon your belief, mind you
that's opinion, not fact
they're the most likely to deter a threat (predator or otherwise). nothing there about need other than your opinion
nonsensical and illogical unless you're talking deer-stand-preppies and occasional hunters
already proved that this was false with linked data
I agree with background checks, however, until you can make states comply with reporting, no "universal background check" is going to work, especially in light of lack of enforcement
this is one reason I advocate for putting more funding into existing effective measures and forcing compliance with prosecutors. Moreover, I advocate for states compliance on background checks with funding as well as resources (training, etc) that will ensure crossing state lines won't help criminals get weapons.
lastly, I advocate for responsibilty (this leads back to forcing compliance of prosecutors)
if that is how laws worked, criminals would seriously consider the death penalty before acting when it's applicible
assumption based upon personal bias
Military can effectively skirmish. Civilians are more likely to run. even you should know that one
I am advocating to allow the civilian as much of an advantage as possible to eliminate the need to make multiple actions or decisions during a stress-shooting situation. You assume the limitations will somehow limit the criminal or fanatic hell bent on killing someone. I don't. It hasn't happened yet. it's not likely to happen just because you pass another law limiting [insert weapon, magazine capacity, etc].
this is best demonstrated by driving through any gang infested area
I used yours.
You don't support it?
Military again, not militia.
You did not.
The bothsides jamb is my observation, and is for explaining why the sane and reasonable are split.
Good policy has nothing to do with the bad arguments of anyone.
You can't need something that's without benefit.
It's well-reasoned, evidence based opinion shared by almost all reasonable people. You have yet to argue against it, notice.
I was talking about the people you described as I quoted.
But not ready to hand, for self defense.
Nobody is advocating laws that are not enforced.
Not an assumption, an assessment. And I'm right, and you know it. A 30 round clip is useless for personal defense.
And I am pointing out that a civilian faces no situations in which large magazines are of any use, and we are better off not pretending they do.
and this would be a lie, otherwise you would quote it as requested - but then again, I proved that point right after your quote: "I deductively reasoned ..."
Militia is to act in the place of military upon activation, therefore it stands to reason it should be resonably armed as such - again, this is stated above
again - Columbine
then you don't need a car as it is without benefit :
public transportatoin is available and you can get around cheaper and with less environmental impact using a bicycle.
what you percieve as a "need" is irrelevant because it's subjective - your needs aren't the same as mine, etc
needs are based upon many factors and as such, only you believe there isn't a need
that doesn't make you correct
it makes you attempting to force your opinion on someone else regardless of their situation, beliefs etc
you make the claim that you're making an "evidence based opinion shared by almost all reasonable people", yet you cannot actually demonstrate that this is factual.
so, no, it's not evidence based, nor is it "shared by almost all reasonable people".
illogical and nonsensical
what in the heck do you think they're going to use them for in the city?
playing poker? stacking for show?
you're advocating for making new laws that will more than likely not be enforced
as I've repeatedly said, and we've seen in the news: we have effective laws if they're enforced
and again, this is demonstrated by Everett vs Broward Co... In one, the laws were enforced, in the other, even the on-site LEO's failed to do their job
no, you're not right.
you believe you're right. you think you're right. its a Self-report or attitudinal statement that you consider correct, therefore it's an opinion. No different than my own opinion.
again, Self-report or attitudinal statement. You're making assumptions based upon your belief.
it doesn't matter if I brought 500 people here to state you are wrong in your assessment, you would make the exact same claim because those people present arguments that do not concur with you
we have differing opinions on this
the one thing you do not have is an "evidence based opinion shared by almost all reasonable people"
Nonsense. Militia is for security at home, the security of freedom in the State - much different weaponry, especially in the modern era.
Doesn't work. (No single example works for your claim).
When your entire argument rests on absurdities like that, it's time to take stock and make some changes.
That's not irrelevant, it's adult political discussion. It's the matter at hand. You argue for what you believe to be your needs, taking care to make sense and not talk about blasting away from a 30 round magazine of .223s at charging grizzly bears, and others likewise.
But we're missing a few, such as magazine restrictions and fire rate restrictions and universal background checks.
Those aren't assumptions, that you quoted.
Yes, I do. The evidence is quoted above, and throughout - some of it is from you. That almost all reasonable people share my approval of these recent selections from my extensive list of suggestions is a fact of the polls and surveys and what-all (that's partly how they made my list). When 85% of the NRA favors or at least tolerates some new piece of gun control legislation (such as universal background checks) one might even say "all reasonable people" - sort of as a definition of reasonableness itself.
different weaponry based upon what?
wrong again: explained more than once
when you say assault weapons bans and magazine restrictions "will slow down spree shooters", Columbine directly proves this comment wrong as it happened during a highly restrictive assault weaspons ban with restricted magazines as well.
If you wish, you can re-read the other posts
you can keep repeating your above claim, but it doesn't make it truer, especially with the linked information already presented
funny, I was thinking the same thing about you
you're the one talking about who needs what - and trying to say there is or isn't a need for high capacity magazines
that is your absurdity
worse still, it's absurd to think everyone is like you (like your claim of an "evidence based opinion shared by almost all reasonable people")
then my need is greater than your need as I need the ability to carry enough firepower for long periods of time without fighting with a bazillion different magazines... it doesn't matter how I justify it. It only matters that I feel it's a need
you're the one saying "blasting away from a 30 round magazine of .223s at charging grizzly bears" is nonsense - because it's your opinion
you claim it's nonsense because you don't agree with it - so that is evidence that you're assuming your own opinion is somehow superior to everyone else based on your personal bias.
This is the biggest problem in our discourse
I don't think we need those. We already have background checks and they're not always effective because states don't always comply. what will the universal background checks do? they will most likely be equally ineffective - we can predict this because it's historically what has happened, repeatedly
you believe we need those additional laws
I don't - I believe we need to enforce existing laws and concentrate on the core problems
there is considerably more evidence supporting my position than yours as demonstrated by the links already provided
repeatedly in some cases
yes, they are
first assumption is: "that a civilian faces no situations in which large magazines are of any use"
this is entirely subjective. Maybe you haven't faced any such situation, but you can't speak for anyone other than yourself
second: "we are better off not pretending they do"
given that you can't make a statement of surety about civilians not facing those situations...
also, you can't say it's not beneficial when someone states anything you don't agree with just because you can't envision the situation ever happening. I can't ever envision a time when I would need to urinate into my canteen, but I've never been isolated on a raft in the middle of the pacific attempting to save my life, either. It doesn't mean it's not possible, it only means I can't envision it.
so just because you can't envision it doesn't mean it's implausible or absurd, nor does it mean your opinion is an "evidence based opinion shared by almost all reasonable people"
your opinion isn't evidence that your opinion is correct.
your poo-pooing anything is also not evidence that your opinion is correct
One major point we're discussing is magazine restrictions which you blatantly misrepresented the data
so when you say you have an "evidence based opinion shared by almost all reasonable people", and I request your evidence, perhaps you should be more specific than "The evidence is quoted above, and throughout", like I was when I listed your faux pas
About your polls: what are the error margins?
1- define "universal" and the whole term, with specifics.
what it usually refers to is "the closing of existing loopholes at the federal level when it comes to background checks for gun purchases"
2- when you state 85% of NRA favours, I want to see NRA links, especially considering the problems historically with national polls (see: 2015 poll of gun owners by Public Policy Polling)
3- lastly, when you say "at least tolerates some new piece of gun control legislation", I want to see this legislation and it's support in the NRA circles.
There is good cause to ask for this specifically. I've linked specific legislation - you can use that same link to select any legislation that is currently in house or senate.
https://www.nraila.org/search?q=support universal background checks
one reason I will nitpick the poll comment is simply because of historical misrepresentation of data. Also, unless I can see the poll questions and how it's being presented, it's not legit. This is best demonstrated by the 2017 article in the NRA-ILA link I left after point 3. a claim of overwhelming support wasn't all that overwhelming.
Of course not. The arguments above from the evidence above would be the support of my opinion. [
And with reason, also with large majority support including the reasonable.
That one incident proves nothing.
The rest of your community, the reasonable majority, disagrees, notices you are unable to justify it in reason, and is unwilling to bear the risk involved.
Uh, yeah, based on the various realities of the situation (the time interval, the accuracy, the stopping power needed for large bears, etc etc etc). It's not a matter of "agreement" - you're describing an absurd fantasy.
On different circumstances and roles, different costs of various kinds, etc.
This has always been obvious - one cannot in reason keep and bear depleted uranium and incendiary artillery shells with their appropriate "guns", for example.
Every legal transfer of ownership is to someone who has passed an appropriate background check.
The legislation does not yet exist. Hence the problem.
it's not within reason to create redundant laws that will not be enforced
this is the reason NRA argues for effective background checks - but not for the typical proposed "universal" checks that certain gun control groups push (as avidenced by the links to both NRA and the GOV)
so when you make the general vague statement while claiming support based on a poll that is not an NRA source, you're making the assumption that self reporting is accurate. This is proven to be an overwhelming failure on far more important issues polled, so I suggest you provide NRA based polls that can demonstrate the validity of your poll linked
a poll, like a study, may show a point of interest. However, when you can link a refute (as I did) that is from the source claimed by a poll (NRA), then said poll cannot be accurate, nor can it be considered supported because you have another similar poll
you keep saying this but you can only produce a poll that isn't NRA source, so again, I will ask:
1- provide the NRA membership poll that supports your claim - you state your poll is accurate whereas I linked you evidence that it is not
2- how is it reasonable to claim majority support in a community if you can't actually provide proof from said community?
That's like saying climate change isn't true and you have overwhelming community support for that claim, so you cite a poll from a link you found on Watt's page... so the scientific community obviously agree's that AGW isn't real.
it's fantastical nature is entirely based upon your opinion
well, DP, HE and incindiary rounds (military rounds) are controlled already, and military grade weapons are also controlled by law already, so why would you add more limits to a militia that already is limited by federal law? (BATFE, FBI and GOV links already provided)
you're talking magazine restrictions to a militia. so - Why would you limit the Militia when it's purpose is (today) a last ditch effort to augment the military or local authorities?
again, if you want magazine/round restrictions it should be logical to base those numbers on existing use by the military and law enforcement, especially as the primary purpose would be due to potential Militia service. The Militia is pulled from the general populace, therefore the general populace should be able to arm themselves in a manner capable of defense. As such, and considering the federal limitations on military weapons and ammo for war, this means they should be capable of deploying a similar common load for, say, an LEO. As such, it is far more typical to see between 13 and 20 rounds in handguns, and the AR has three typical magazines with the 30 round mag being common.
That is logical.
who will fund the private sales background checks?
How will they be enforced?
that latter is the biggie, IMHO, because the state can't even track legal sales on vehicles... and that has an enormous database of users and owners
it would be far more effective to pour that funding into fixing existing problems with background checks - like state compliance and training
moreover, there are problems with current background checks that need to be studied and addressed to fix, so that should also be funded
I've already provided legislation that is being fought by the NRA
So, considering I've given you NRA links, you should be able to easily provide supporting evidence of the argument that currently NRA members (especially a majority) "at least tolerates some new piece of gun control legislation"
(gun control for dummies) Hit what you aim at!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bullets ain't free, don't waste 'em.
One shot---one kill.
(note the slight red spot behind the shoulder blade)
That's the better part of 100 lbs of good red meat for about 4 dollars(<2 for the round and 2 for the tag) And, I traded the hide for a pair of leather gloves.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nice shot! is that yours?
naturally, I use the M18 as it pre-grinds the meat for use - LOL
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Good questions. Time to settle in and do the work of governance.
Best not do that, then.
Bad laws proposed by some are no reason to reject good laws proposed by others.
This is an old argument, with certain basic facts long established. Demanding proof of long-established basic facts wastes time.
It's based on the wellknown facts of grizzly bear size and speed (or the attack time of any large and dangerous animal) and the known facts of firing even the quickest semiautomatic weapon (including what you've posted here). Just do the arithmetic.
If you actually need more evidence, look at the weapons carried by the chaperones and guides of big game hunters and the like - anyone whose concern about being attacked by a predator is legitimate.
If you need the exercise of a heavier weapon, tape a brick to it - cheaper.
Walk. Chew gum. Get where you're going with fresh breath.
Yes from the back yard.
Separate names with a comma.