Jump to content

Several inconsistencies in the server continuity


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jcat said:

 

Yes it is.  The places with the most gun violence often have the heaviest gun control.  New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles.  That's because only law abiding people abide by gun control laws and the criminals, who are doing the homicides, don't give a shit about gun control and do whatever they want.

?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/pictures/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/
 

NYC isnt even on the list bro

 

LA also isnt as violent as it was in the 90s, infact, the US is SIGNIFICANTLY less violent since the nineties. 
 

because violent crime is directly linked with poverty. as economical outcomes improved in major US cities, violent crime goes down.

 

and you’ll notice with increased wealth inequality crime rates are going up again, but not in the old neighborhoods of Brooklyn or Compton, but instead in areas such as Detroit or Kansas city.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/618381/

 

which are the poorest cities in the US. and it has nothing to do with gun control.

 

imagine thinking less guns saturated in an area is anyway linked to more crime. if that were true, New Orleans would have the lowest amount of gun violence in the US. But the opposite is true.

 

Easy access to firearms, legal or otherwise, combined with poverty is a major contributor to gun violence.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, jcat said:

 

Yes it is.  The places with the most gun violence often have the heaviest gun control.  New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles.  That's because only law abiding people abide by gun control laws and the criminals, who are doing the homicides, don't give a shit about gun control and do whatever they want.


New York doesn't lose 1% of its population daily to homicides, don't be ridiculous.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, arandomgamer said:

New York doesn't lose 1% of its population daily to homicides, don't be ridiculous.

 

What was your point?

 

My point was that places with a lot of gun violence frequently have restrictive gun control laws.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Terrabyte said:

which are the poorest cities in the US. and it has nothing to do with gun control.

 

My point was, a lot of gun violence can exist at the same time with "heavy gun control", and that gun control laws are reasonable for a city that has a lot of gun violence.

 

Anyway, I chose those cities because they have restrictive gun control laws and high gun violence at the same time, which was my point.  I did not make the argument they were among the most dangerous cities.

 

I did not address the causes of gun violence, you went on that entire tangent by yourself.

 

This is what he said:

 

Quote

Heavy gun control is not reasonable in a city where you have 20 homicides a day for 1000 people.

 

Really, I don't know what point he was trying to make.  He could have meant a city shouldn't have gun control if it has 20 homicides a day for 1000 people, or he could have meant heavy gun control wasn't working, so I made my best guess and stated that it's very reasonable to have restrictive gun control (heavy is a vague word) in a city that has a high rate of gun violence.

 

 

 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, i dont wanna od in LA said:

Well and so does San Andreas. Whether you like it or not but the gun laws here are pretty harsh.

 

Yes, that's exactly right.  It's completely reasonable for a city with a lot of gun violence (and hammer robberies) to have harsh gun control laws.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jcat said:

 

What was your point?

 

My point was that places with a lot of gun violence frequently have restrictive gun control laws.

 

My point is that your point is useless, because Los Santos is massively deadlier than those places and as such they cannot be compared.

Let's see one of the political candidates say he'll restrict CCWs and watch as he gets 0% votes because no one thinks that's a good idea.

Edited by arandomgamer
Link to comment

Ok, I went back and read Sugar's post that you were responding to, and your comment was a tangent about gun control, and this discussion we're having about gun control isn't relevant to what OP wanted to talk about.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Glitch said:

Did you know one of the modded caps in the game is a baseball cap with “LA” written on it?

 

inconsistency is truly a staple here. 

The other day I just saw someone wearing a Lakers top, too.

 

Are they the LS Lakers? I don't know what to make of it.

 

  

12 hours ago, Macarroncito said:

This.

 

The whole continuity thing is a bad joke and a waste of time.

As far as I can tell, the argument for server continuity was made partially because people really didn't like all the Rockstar humour ingrained within the game.

 

I personally don't mind it but that's the reason I've seen often in discussions regarding it. When you leave it vague as it used to be when the server started, the biggest problem you'd run into was players disagreeing and some minor awkwardness. But the attempt to nail down the continuity birthed all these threads, which is fine if the team eventually work it out anyway, but I still think it's worth reconsidering the continuity rule.

Edited by shaobadman
Link to comment
  • Wuhtah locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...