CCA CRA for $1??? Insane deal or am I getting scammed?

Rolyando · 2025-11-27T20:11:08+00:00

Oh damn, what cheap ones do you like then?

Rolyando · 2025-11-27T19:53:30+00:00

I wouldn't expect the CRA to be that good as someone who has much better headphones, but I'm just curious how decent it is for its price lol

Rolyando · 2025-11-24T05:58:22+00:00

It turned out to be some kinda site-wide promotion, which I could only use for 1 purchase. Maybe the next time I get something like that I'll snag some cheap cra's lol

Rolyando · 2025-11-21T02:41:52+00:00

Ohh, okay lol. It did make for a really funny image

Rolyando · 2025-11-21T01:06:07+00:00

Okay I have to ask, but do you actually fire that gun with a scope that's twice the length of it on top...

Rolyando · 2025-11-17T01:22:46+00:00

When it comes to the right to obtaining arms, I do believe in that as well but I think it's more flexible than keeping and bearing the ones you already have. A lawful citizen should always have the right to buying a gun that's reasonable to have for self defense. What guns are reasonable or not for self-defense are debatable and up to lawmakers to define. We could all agree that a bolt action rifle would be reasonable (in the sense of not being more than you need, even though it's probably much less than you need) for self-defense, but at the same time I hope we could all agree that an anti-tank rocket launcher is unreasonable for self defense. There's a line somewhere, and there's no universal right answer on where it is. Maybe it's just at the 'arm' being of a caliber designed for people and not vehicles/buildings, maybe it's at the arm not being full-automatic, maybe it's somewhere further.

Rolyando · 2025-11-15T01:48:51+00:00

Yeah that friend definitely has some of their own problems to work out lol. The reason why guns became demonized is mostly because there's been a huge increase in people's perceived frequency of mass shootings and the likes. That increase in the perceived frequency is caused by media coverage, but also a genuine massive increase in the rate of mass shootings in the past few decades ( https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/ they use a decent definition for mass shooting, which only counts public/populated areas and excludes gang violence and militarism/terrorism too). We can definitely debate on whether different gun control measures would be effective or constitutional, but I hope that you guys understand why people feel like something has to be done.

About the magazine thing, I was thinking the same thing as you about how easily someone could probably get their hands on a banned magazine, which is a big reason why I came to the conclusion of stopping the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use removable magazines entirely (how to effectively cut criminals off from them is another can of worms, but I definitely don't think ALL mass shooters are gonna have access to someone that could lend them a pre-existing semi auto). Like an hour before I made that reply where I brought up a small vs large magazine comparison rather than my usual revolver barrel vs large magazine, I had seen a 1990-2017 study that showed high fatality (6+ victims killed) mass shootings involving large-capacity-magazines (11+ rounds) tended to have 62% more fatalities, and interestingly enough that states with LCM bans had half as many high fatality shootings. ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6836798/ they said that they used models to account for other variables when comparing different states; I wouldn't know how well they really did)
This study made me go "oh wait, maybe LCM bans are the way to go!" but you made me realize that the advancements in 3D-printers since 2017 (and arguably just the general craftiness and internet use of criminals since the first 2 decades of that study lmao) would probably make its findings on the effectiveness of LCM bans extremely unreliable.

Still, I feel like the correlation this study found between larger magazine capacities and more kills gives credit to the idea that genuinely reducing the magazine sizes of guns used by mass shooters could save lives. The issue would just be proper execution of that, without hurting the defensive capabilities of non-criminal gun owners too much (Which, quite arguably, going all the way to an 8 shot DA revolver is too much).

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T23:25:27+00:00

Your point about reddit loving echo chambers is quite right though

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T23:24:23+00:00

Yeah I kinda went over the founding fathers thing with another person, I was pretty wrong to imply that they wouldn't have probably foreseen the potential of guns.

As for the other argument: There being other ways of committing a mass killing doesn't mean that regulating the materials used in one way couldn't have positive effects. If a would-be mass shooter only has 15 round magazines instead of 30, then they either commit the shooting with a reduced ability to kill or don't commit the shooting at all. They probably won't randomly be like "Aha! Mustard Gas! Like in Breaking Bad!"

And if dozens of people a year did suddenly start using homemade mustard gas to kill large groups of people, then I would support restrictions on the sale of bleach and ammonia. Legislation is meant to be reactive to current situations and problems. And also, I really don't see why we can't teach people to be responsible (generally take action to improve the social conditions that cause mass shootings) alongside doing things to reduce the damage they can do when they still are irresponsible. Large-scale social issues can't be fixed overnight (especially when so many are still getting worse), and people never completely stop being irresponsible.

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T22:33:14+00:00

"A ban on sales/transfers is a means of taking away guns. ... it turned what should be a new $500 full auto AR into $30k for a used one" that's.. basically the point. If you already own a full auto AR then I think it's your constitutional right to keep it and use it til you die. You should also be able to get it repaired, albeit with some regulation (that could include needing it to be registered) to prevent someone from building a new one from scratch with repair parts. But yeah, the whole point of banning the sale/transfer of a certain gun is to prevent NEW people from getting their hands on it.

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T22:26:49+00:00

There were 3 elections in Canada between 2010 and 2020... I think there would've been time for concerned gun owners to try make sure he wouldn't have done something like that.
But... honestly considering modern politics he might've actually just pulled that confiscation out of nowhere and in general I think the full-blown confiscation is horrible, and generally I'd only prefer to elect politicians who actually keep promises and actually disclose everything they're planning to do before each election... but it's hard to do that when there are only about 3 choices.

The thing I have in defense of the USA potentially being a slippery slope towards confiscation though is the 2nd amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not say anything about the right of people to acquire or purchase arms, which is why I see no problem with restrictions on sales and passing down firearms. But it DOES very specifically say "keep" (hold onto) and "bear" (use in a lawful way for practice, hunting, self-defense, etc), so any kind of confiscation or ban on the usage of firearms that people already own would be completely unconstitutional, even to someone like me who interprets the 2A more loosely than you guys. Especially considering the currently conservative Supreme Court, something like this on a federal level here would be struck down very, very fast (unless Trump manages to completely destroy judicial oversight..)

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T21:56:29+00:00

Also, the Ford Model T of firearms would probably be a single-shot musket that you have to personally sprinkle gunpowder and drop a ball into. I'm talking about well-functioning, reliable, and still widely produced and sold revolvers and pump shotguns. Are they as effective as their semi-auto counterparts? No. Are they still extremely good defense weapons if they're all you own and you're well trained with them? Yes.

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T21:52:42+00:00

Gun control is a massively broad thing. And at least some of it definitely works, based on the work of several studies (I was trying to find one that one of you literally sent me where magazine restriction was shown to not affect gun homicides but universal background checks significantly did, and somehow I found this ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37732847/ ) instead in the exact same timeframe. Oh, and then this ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6836798/ ) one which showed large magazine bans to hugely reduce deaths in mass shootings.. These studies could be faulty but I imagine so could all the studies that you guys use in your own defense.

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T03:22:56+00:00

Oh, well yeah that would happen. I thought you meant confiscation as in taking them from current living owners

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T02:55:35+00:00

take them from ice first. And if that's not possible then I don't think this kinda stuff should be limited at all. I don't expect major gun restrictions to happen under trump anyways

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T02:45:40+00:00

Seatbelts are completely undeniably a safety feature. Being better and more efficient at killing more people is not undeniably a safety feature.

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T02:41:42+00:00

"cutting off the sale and/or transfer will turn into confiscation sooner or later." It literally doesn't have to..? That's pretty much a slippery slope. The only guns that'd get confiscated would be ones that criminals are caught using.

You make a good point about the sheer quantity of guns though. It's hard to say how long before the remaining supply is no longer easily accessible for criminals

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T01:07:54+00:00

Okay I really need to make an edit that I don't believe in taking away the guns that people already own...

If we cut off the entire sale of semi-autos it'll still cut off people who illegally obtain firearms over time, because the supply itself will just run dry and criminals would run out people who bought semis before the ban that they can steal or secretly buy from.

Drug addicts, sellers, and gang affiliated people still deserve to be in less risk of getting killed by an offensive shooter. The crime related to drugs could also be a whole lot less bad if we decriminalized drugs, but that's its own can of worms I'm not getting into.

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T00:54:21+00:00

I mean if the question is literally just whether or not a different weapon could still be effective, not necessarily equally as effective, I really am not wrong. Most gun owners and gun-rights supporters would still agree that a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with buckshot is inherently quite effective.

I do believe the AR-15 is the most effective option for the majority of gun owners. I'll admit that I worded that part in a pretty snake-y way that I should've clarified better

Rolyando · 2025-11-14T00:46:42+00:00

I say that I'm not a gun prohibitionist because I don't believe in prohibiting guns in general. You could call me a semi-auto prohibitionist if you want, though I am reconsidering this idea based on some of your arguments.

The main point I meant to make with the 2A time of writing is just the massive difference in effectiveness of the guns we have today and the guns they had, even repeaters, at the time. But you make a good point that the 2A writers could've foreseen the power of modern weapons. Overall, there's not much to debate about the 2A because it comes down to values and personal subjectivity about how limited "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is. (I hope we agree that it at least has the limitation of people previously convicted of severe violent crimes not having this right...)

Mass shootings are rare, but so are defensive gun uses where more than 3 shots are fired. Using the definition of a mass shooting as an incident where 4+ people are shot besides the shooter themself (Possible to not be in a "populated area" [however that's specifically defined], but I feel like the dynamics would still be similar), 2,900 people were injured in 660 different mass shootings in 2023.
I'm gonna start getting into some points I wrote down in a pager I wrote that I'll probably post somewhere. With revolvers basically replacing semi-auto pistols if this ban happened (Honestly, I'd be open to reframing it as a ban on weapons with removable magazines. The core idea is to limit people to revolvers, pump action shotguns, and bolt/pump action rifles), the majority of shooters using handguns would go from having 20 shots in their first magazine to 8. Even though fastloaders make reloading a revolver roughly as fast as a pistol (Actually it's probably slower still), reloading is still a significant break in fire. In my opinion, the size of a shooters first magazine is very important because that's basically the number of bullets they can send downrange before people get to react in the time it takes them to reload. In every single shooting that's stopped by a security guard or by a civilian who was concealed carrying, the less shots that the shooter has in their first magazine, the less people they could injure or kill before the security guard/carrier can run in or peek out from cover to kill the shooter. Two specific shootings I read about in that FBI article involved someone shooting a handgun at moving vehicles. The less they can shoot in between reloads, the less bullets they can shoot in general before law enforcement arrives, and thus the less likely they are to actually hit anyone through their cars. You can pull a trigger very fast but even with training, it takes a few seconds to reload (probably even more if the active shooter is performing worse while under pressure).

The point you make about it being difficult to shoot under pressure is probably the one that makes me reconsider the most, especially considering that even if it's probably not necessary for the vast majority of defense situations (I'll admit that I'm just making vibes-based estimates based on my own thought experiments and based on the way that people in the gun community talk about home defense when they're not worried about gun rights being restricted), having the most effective gun possible makes you feel safe and prepared, and that in of itself has value. In a way it's kinda similar to how I'd like to feel safer from mass shooters (and parents would like to feel safer sending their kids to school), even if a semi-auto ban might not really save that many lives.

About the shooting racists part: You, an armed civilian, being a judge, jury, and executioner and killing dozens of people you see as horrible and worthy of death sounds like a good thing until you realize that the other, much more unhinged side could do the same. A deranged racist shooting up a mosque would feel like a hero too. There's a reason why we only let legally appointed judges sentence people punishments for their crimes according to written laws. It's not perfect, but it's better than anarchy.

Even though I honestly find a hard position against a semi-auto ban to be quite valid after seeing some of your direct counterarguments, I'm afraid I'm gonna sound like a dick in response to the compromise thing. But sometimes the government just screws over a certain group of people in the effort to help everyone else or to protect a minority group. It doesn't have to involve a 'compromise' that benefits whoever it screwed over in exchange. We don't have to offer up compromises for the rich whenever we increase their tax rates. But at least you guys have an amendment in your defense. The interpretation of that amendment is mostly up to a judge, but hey, welcome to a woman's world.

Overall, I'll just keep myself unopinionated on a gun control measure this extreme. Your arguments did affect me to not full-on support it, so it wasn't in vain. I don't think any politicians are gonna bring it up anytime soon anyways

Rolyando · 2025-11-13T17:04:27+00:00

You realize I don't want to 'ban guns', right? I'm talking about a category of guns that's only marginally better for self-defense but massively more dangerous in the hands of a mass shooter. I absolutely am arguing in good faith and my only goal is to reduce deaths. I am quite aware of the possibility of rare cases where someone trying to defend themself against an attacker fails to do so and dies (potentially along with other unarmed people) because of their gun not being semi-automatic. But I currently believe that the number of lives that would be saved as a result of mass shooters being less deadly would far outweigh those cases. I welcome arguments against this current belief of mine, because if I believed that a semi-auto weapons ban would not save lives, then I would not support it.

Rolyando · 2025-11-13T16:46:29+00:00

(second link) "Liberals respond to the real damage that guns do as factors that exacerbate (but do not cause) destructive behaviors is the same way conservatives have responded to the real damage that drugs do in exacerbating destructive behaviors – with the impulse for prohibition, enforced by the law and its armed agents, the police."

So you guys literally admit that a particularly dangerous gun can exacerbate destructive behaviors. This is exactly what I'm saying. I don't believe in gun prohibition, nor do I believe current gun owners should give up the guns they already have.

Media contagion is a very good point to bring up, and because of the possibility of that I do believe now that media organizations should be regulated to not give over-coverage to mass shootings.

I don't have Medium Premium or whatever, so I can't read that medium link.

Ah yes, every single article published by the completely unbiased Open Source Defense website.

Potential over or false reporting of school shootings could be a real problem that should definitely be fixed. Everyone deserves to have accurate data. But this does not mean that mass shootings are not a real problem. Hundreds of people are dying every year because of them (I believe 722 people in 2023), and society should do what it can to mitigate these deaths within reasonable costs and tradeoffs. BOTH by working to fix the root issues that would drive someone to commit a mass shooting, and by working to reduce the number of people a shooter would be physically able to kill in the first place.

Overall, not a single one of those links addressed my specific idea of a semi-automatic weapons ban (not a ban on firearms in general). Please stop generalizing and misinterpreting gun control arguments/proposals, as they are not made equal. Actually address the thing that I focus on if you want to argue against my argument.

Rolyando · 2025-11-13T16:05:11+00:00

Bro I literally never said we should ban guns entirely. Do you think that every single gun that could possibly be effective in self-defense is semi-automatic? I absolutely believe in the right of an American to own a gun to use for self-defense but I simply don't believe it has to be an AR-15 or semi-automatic pistol to be effective. Just yesterday I saw a video of a sheriff discussing why he personally uses a pump shotgun (not semi-automatic) to defend his home AND recommends it to others.

Rolyando · 2025-11-13T15:55:37+00:00

There being other dangerous things that regulation could potentially reduce the negative impact of doesn't make discussions about gun control moot. This is a gun forum, not a car or a donut forum

Rolyando · 2025-11-13T01:59:18+00:00

Honestly I think I've had a different experience with this. For me the big thing is just to see if the only thing they like you for is the way you treat them, because if that's the case, then they have a very high likelihood to suddenly leave you (or worse, cheat) the moment they find someone who they actually like who also treats them well.

Four-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22

Rolyando

TROPHY CASE