venomai

Like I said: I agree that there is a difference between wanting a gun to commit a crime and wanting a gun for self-defense, even though there may be some overlap between the two. That, however, does not mean I agree with those using guns as self-defense. Extreme analogies are effective analogies. :) Why do you continue to bring up this point? It's irrelevant. Things were wildly different in the distant past. Surgery was almost non-existent and societies were far less "civil" -- justice was met by murder, not courts and law. Showing a high homicide rate in the past/present says nothing about whether or not less lethal weapons tend to lead to less lethal outcomes. Why not look at the present? Today, even in America, knives are used in many violent crimes, and often with much different outcomes[1]. When we compare stab wounds to gunshot wounds, it becomes clear that victims of stab wounds have a much lower mortality rate than victims of gunshot wounds[2][3]. In other words; those attacked by knives tend to have a higher "survival rate" than those attacked by guns (simply because gunshot wounds are so much more destructive to vital organs than stab wounds). Again; Danger's link, for the most part, does not go against my claims. Where did I say anything of the sort? In fact, I agree with many of the statistics in Danger's link, even if there is a clear bias. And which of my statistics are biased toward anti-gun parties? Nobody is saying people buy guns for no reason at all... Whether or not it is true that people who purchase firearms do so with the intent to kill, it is clear that the vast majority of them do not follow through with this intent when faced with a clear opportunity to do so (regardless of the weapon used). Guns are not the "root of murder." People kill people without guns, as I've said hundreds of times. Guns are, however, at the root of higher rates of homicide for the simple reason that more lethal weapons tend to result in more lethal outcomes. There are a number of factors that contribute to higher rates of homicide in a given country, and the lethality of the weapons used is but one of them. The problem is America's incredibly high homicide rate compared to other nations. I thought this much was obvious, considering the sheer number of pages we've been discussing the very subject. You still assume that (a) "criminals will always get guns," regardless of a change in availability, and (B) "without guns, citizens cannot defend themselves." As we've discussed, these assumptions are incorrect.

I agree. I'm not suggesting pens as weapons is realistic or common -- I'm suggesting that less lethal weapons, whether it be pens, pipes, baseball bats or knives, often result in less lethal outcomes. It sure does... Cynicism? Try realism. And how about you respond to my arguments? Why? Why is it so difficult to grasp that less lethal weapons can often lead to less lethal outcomes, regardless of whether or not intent exists? In other words... You really don't care to try and resolve the problem?

To remove bias when comparing lethality and mortality rates between weapons, we compare similarly placed wounds. For example, wounds to the heart, wounds to the abdomen, etc. Imagine if we were to argue that knives were more lethal than guns on the grounds that a stab wound to the heart is more lethal than a gunshot wound to the toe! --- Or... Reduce the demand and availability by, among other things, promoting a change in methods of self-defense. An arbitrary limit to suit your argument? How convenient. ;) Replace pens with baseball bats, pipes or even knives and my argument remains the same. It's a lot more difficult to kill somebody with a baseball bat than with a gun. I'll ask again: where am I making the assumption that correlation always implies causation? I don't doubt that guns can be used effectively in self-defense, and often are. This isn't a statistic that goes against my claims. The "positive" vs. "negative" argument is vague and unsubstantiated. Kleck's findings did not show more "positive" or "life saving" uses, it showed a high rate of self-reported self-defense. It would be foolish to assume that all of these acts of so-called self-defense would have been justified, let alone in the interest of society[1]. It's even more foolish to assume that all averted gun crime would have otherwise resulted in death or serious injury. Like I said, it can be argued that intent exists at the moment the gun is fired or the knife is swung, but this doesn't mean the criminal will always follow through with that intent to the fullest of their ability (i.e. ensuring death), nor does it mean the entire crime (such as a robbery) was committed with the original intent of killing the victim. Unless death is ensured by repeated stabbings/shootings (such as in premeditated murder, crimes of passion, etc), the outcomes will vary based on, among other factors, the relative lethality of the weapon used. Truly accidental shootings (such as accidental discharge) is not something I've yet to bring up, although it is another issue that would be reduced with substitution. "Nuclear warfare" and "self-defense" also have a lot in common. What is your point? That we should have the right to arm ourselves with the most destructive means of self-defense regardless of the outcome on the rest of society? :lol:

Thanks guys. :thumbup: Heh, I suppose the texturing wasn't as subtle as I had hoped for. I see what you mean, and I'll try to fix that in the next version. The background is more or less a placeholder right now. I'm slowly chipping away at the scene part-by-part. It does seem awkward. I'll try to fix that too, thanks. :)

Let me tell you once more: that's not what I think. Of course... It's an analogy And while pipes, knives and bats can still be "pretty lethal," they are obviously far less lethal than a gun. Anti-tobacco and anti-racism campaigns have made clear the detrimental effects of these things to society as a whole. Anti-gun campaigns attempt to do the same. Where does this apply? Although the site's conclusions are extremely broad, the statistics seem mostly accurate. Very few of them, however, appear to "work against" my claims. Which ones did you have in mind? Fluke events and gun jams are irrelevant. We aren't talking about whether or not guns kill all the time; we are talking about whether or not criminals will try to kill all the time. And, as I've said, even when the criminal has a clear opportunity to take a victim's life, in the vast majority of cases they will not. Nobody is saying there will be no need for self-defense... --- Posting from gun-ridden Florida. :D Happy holidays.

That study compares vegetarians to "people who eat lots of meat." Other studies have suggested that the mortality rates of moderate meat- and/or fish- eaters is not significantly different from vegetarians. The following study, for example, suggests that fish eaters (0.82) and occasional meat-eaters (0.84) show lower mortality rates than vegetarians (0.94) after confounding factors have been accounted for. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies

Euthanize Jeff and let the three embryos develop into three healthy babies.

Taking away all weapons, all drugs, or all vehicles is far less realistic than substituting one weapon, one drug, or one vehicle for a less destructive alternative. I don't doubt it. In the right situation, I can turn a ballpoint pen into a deadly weapon. Obviously, though, if criminals were using ballpoint pens instead of guns and knives, we would be seeing a sharp decline in violent crime related deaths simply because of the extra skill and effort that it would take to kill somebody with a pen (in other words: due to the difference in the weapon's lethality). Likewise, cigarette use was commonplace in the past. But, regardless of whether it will be commonplace in the future (which doesn't appear to be the case), it's clear that the anti-tobacco movement has made a significant impact on rates of cigarette use and, subsequently, tobacco-related deaths. ... An opinion based not on statistics or reason, but emotion and wilfull ignorance. The fact that you've repeatedly (and deliberately) ignored the statistics presented in this thread tells us something about your position. More effort is inevitable. Instead of pulling a trigger, they will have to swing their entire arm. In neither case, though, is there so much effort as to ensure the victim's death. I'd much rather see destructive weapons in the hands of a few bad people than in the hands of all bad people. -- Some of those statistics are pretty good, while others are broad and unfounded. I can't care to go over each one, but which did you have in mind specifically? Anyways... happy holidays. :) I'll reply in a week or so.

I think this should remain open. It's a nice application that I'm sure will become popular in the Gallery. This thread can also serve as a place to report bugs or suggestions. :thumbsup:

What santa? :lol: I see what you mean about proportion, though. Thanks! Will fix that shortly.

It's a great tablet. I'd suggest a smaller size, though. The Graphire Wireless looks awesome, too. Pretty much all the WACOM tablets are great, and usually you can find decent prices at smaller computer stores.

Here's a screen of what I'm seeing: :lol: Oh, and I'm using an Intuos 3, 6x8.

Yep, I use a tablet. Is it just me or do the smilies appear HUGE?

Me in the mornings before class... [hide=older versions][/hide] Starting a steampunk series which I hope to later model in 3ds Max. ("concepts" is just a placeholder until I decide on a title) Comments and criticism is welcome. Any ideas on other objects that would look cool "steampunked" is also appreciated. EDIT: updated snowman

Good start. I'd use overlay or soft light to make the red look more "bloody" on the stone. Adding some subtle drips might also be cool. The demon isn't too bad. It's a little shaky. Usually once I draw a rough, I go over it zoomed in to clean up the shape. I'd put more emphasis on the demon, and give him some colours. :)

What's your point? There are tons of "rs fakes" that look almost identical to the original screenshots. And there are plenty of sigs that use almost nothing other than renders, a bit of brushing and some text (your recent sigs, Insanity, are no exception).

Same here.

Says the man with a render in almost all of his sigs... :lol: To the OP: I like the idea. It's much easier on the eyes than the average fake we see here (almost none of which are 50% of the artist's work). A few things that could make it even better: - Shrink the castle and make it much taller. I'd also flip the eye 90 degrees. - Add some mood to the scene with adjustment layers and a perhaps a subtle blur effect. Here's a rough example of what I mean: (maybe not so heavy on the effects, though!) [hide=][/hide] - Change the sky to make it look more spooky. You can do this with other stocks, if you want. - Change the Runescape logo to something LOTR-based! :) Here are some references for the environment and how it may look: [hide=] [/hide]

We played some pretty stupid sports in gym. One water sport I remember was, more or less, "everybody drown the ball-holder." The goal was to hold on to the ball the longest. If you are completely submerged underwater, you must release the ball. Not surprisingly, it always ended up being 15 or so people forcing one person underwater until the ball was released. :? Banning dodgeball, though? That's just ridiculous.

Best to start from the ground-up. Learn about composition and design, colour theory, proportion and depth through drawing and/or painting (or at the very least some basic large works). I know it may feel like a "step back" after all the work you've already done, but trust me, it will really be more like your "first steps." :lol: The best thing to do would be to create a work of art that isn't dependent on renders, filters, gradients, pre-made brushes, etc. ;)

What does this have to do with LSD? Or did you just pick a random drug that you thought sounded cool? :|

A twist on an old Chinese proverb: "Dreams may open the door, but you must enter yourself." If we adhere to the same "dreams" of our ancestors, we will simply end up at the same "doors," so to speak. In order to reach new heights, we must challenge our once-held faiths.

Believing in fairy tales won't do much to help improve society. If anything, it seems to take a step backwards. Human advancement is driven by challenging and falsifying society's once-held beliefs -- not following them blindly.

... Or walk on water, or turn water into wine? ;) And the Greek gods were not "humans," they were gods.

I'm interested to know how science "debunked" the Greek gods. :idea: It seems more likely that science has not debunked the Greek gods, but rather some of the claims that were associated with them. If this is all that is needed to "debunk a god," then the Judeo-Christian God would have been debunked long ago. ;)