venomai

Reality is hundreds of times more beautiful and more interesting than delusions. Fairy tales just tend to be easier to follow than the wonderful intricacies of life.

Rate/hate is a stupid system. Arbitrary numbers out of 10, or a mere "hate it," is not something you should bother posting when the artist asks for criticism. Praise is all relative, and aside from being a nice morale booster, it's pretty useless. In "tag" forums and other amateur art forums, constant praise can even be counterproductive. :-#

And...? Since so many things can cause death, we may as well give up trying to reduce these preventable deaths? Whether or not you consider guns to be violent objects, substituting guns with knives will not make a violent criminal "less violent." I've acknowledged this several times now: "Yes, people kill people without using guns." The problem with your rebuttal is that it is not relevant (i.e. it is a red herring). It does not address my points, and it only states the obvious: that alternatives exist for many acts in life. It must be realized that although alternatives exist, they are not all equal in efficacy. And, by this understanding, a reduction in guns will impact both criminals as well as law-abiding citizens in that it will force them to use less lethal (and perhaps less intimidating/effective) weapons for crimes, self-defense, etc. However, this is a worthwhile loss for the citizens because of the overall reduction in lethal crime (i.e. lower homicide rates). In other words, I would rather see a reduction in firearm availability than an increase in firearm self-defense. I "sacrifice" my right to use certain weapons in self-defense (e.g. handguns, assault rifles, bazookas) because I realize that the risks of introducing them into households outweigh the benefits. Nobody is saying that self-defense will be "less necessary" if criminals are using kinves instead of guns. With proper control and low availability, the vast majority of criminals will not be able to acquire guns. There "may" be some serious flaws that need correcting, but everything "may" also go perfectly smoothly. (These blind speculations will get us nowhere, though.) Yep; with the intention that criminals will no longer "always" be getting their hands on guns. Other than sport and collection? Self-defense. Anyone who values self-defense, regardless of whether they purchase a weapon, may have a "general intent" to kill whomever puts their life at risk. This, however, does not mean that the criminal purchases the gun with the intention of kiling the store clerk, or that the law-abiding citizen purchases the gun with the intention of killing his wife a year later in a fit of rage. In no way does this mean that the robber will, if given a less lethal weapon, "try harder to kill his victims." I'm not looking for a world without guns, I'm looking for a world with less guns. I see this as realistic and as possible as any other movement -- from gay rights, to women's rights, to marijuana law reform.

Decent exam marks. :lol:

Uhh... and what would the difference be? I think you can figure this one out on your own. I'm not suggesting we try to reduce violence. I'm suggesting we try to reduce lax gun control and availability. These are two completely separate concepts. A "red herring," in this context, refers to a logical fallacy. Refuting with a logical fallacy -- i.e. pointing out the flawed logic in an argument -- is not a digression (and therefore not a red herring). http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... rring.html Smoking rates have been cut in half since the decline (and anti-tobacco movement) began in the mid 60s -- the rates of cigarette smoking have fallen from around 40% of all American adults to around 20%[1]. If tens of millions of people is "not anywhere near enough" for you, then I'm not sure what is. Few movements are completely foolproof. Flaws and problems are expected; we tend to move past them. I'm just rolling (pun!) with your earlier drug analogy. I've already acknowledged that you don't need a gun to die. What is your point? Because people die from knives and baseball bats, we may as well give up trying to reduce America's abnormally high gun crime and homicide rates? We've covered this pages ago. You're talking about premeditated murder, in which a firearm is purchased with the intention of using it to kill another person. It's foolish to assume that, just because a person (criminal or not) purchases a loaded gun for self-defense, they must be intending to kill people. I've repeated it several times now; if it was the case that armed criminals made it their 'purpose' (intention) to kill all their victims, they would be taking extra measures to ensure death (i.e. repeated stabbings or shootings). This is not the case. There's not much to say.

Fjords have pretty much the same look, just with an even wider opening (a lake, rather than a stream). http://z.about.com/d/cruises/1/0/2/K/3/ ... jords2.jpg https://secure.reservexl.net/wwwimg/img ... 2593-2.jpg http://www.exotic.to/photos/norway_fjords.jpg

I'm not saying we just "get rid" of all dangerous things -- I'm saying better gun control is necessary if we wish to reduce the high rate of homicide in America. Slight influences from confounding factors should be expected, but that doesn't mean statistics are irrelevant or useless to your argument. My argument is anti-gun, not anti-violence. Uhh.. no, it's not. Well placed campaigns, such as truth, have shown to be very effective in reducing cigarette use and addiction.[1][2] Over the years, antitobacco sentiments, campaigns, education, etc. have contributed to a very steady decline in smoking rates[3]. Are you kidding? I'm not saying guns are the only cause of death. Which you've twisted completely. I'm not arguing that violent crime is unintended, as it quite clearly is intended, nor am I suggesting that intent to kill never exists at the moment a criminal pulls the trigger. I'm arguing that intent to kill does not always exist originally and, more importantly, regardless of whether intent to kill existed at some point during the crime, rarely (aside from premeditated murder, of course) do we see the criminal follow through with it to the point that death is ensured. In other words: if given a less lethal weapon, there is no indication that all criminals will "try harder not to fail [to kill the victim]."

This isn't a difference of one or two deaths. We are talking about thousands of deaths (not to mention disabling injuries) that can be prevented. Statistics -- specifically, the impact of lax gun control -- is very much relevant to the question of whether firearm self-defense is justified. This is a verbal debate on a Runescape fanboard. I am not an activist at a rally, nor am I trying to change the world. I am proposing an argument in favour of gun control. Whether or not I personally do anything to change the world is completely irrelevant to my points. And I am well aware of the difference between self-defense and persuasion. I'm not so sure, however, what the difference between these two concepts -- both of which have predictable outcomes (i.e. it's not "anyone's guess" as to what will happen) -- has to do with my arguments. Sounds like a red herring to me. And I've already acknowledged that there are alternative methods of self-defense as well as murder. Why would I blame "guns in general"? Countries like Norway and Switzerland have proven that, with proper control (i.e. attitude/law), high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high homicide rates. Diminishing the impact of certain harmful drugs, such as cigarettes, by means of cultural changes (education, etc.) will result in less deaths. A great revolution indeed. Where did I say this? I suggested that, although self-defense may be necessary for the victim, gun ownership is not. What are you going on about? Where did I say this?

Woah! That's a lot more dense than I was expecting. :lol: It looks like you just put transparent lines of text behind what you've got. The idea I was going for was smaller words more tightly packed together, but not necessarily over top one another. Then, if you like, you can change individual words to different colours to create the effect of "shading."

I don't see this as a problem. Handguns are designed to kill people -- these are not toys to fool around with or stamps to be collected. Continued ownership of handguns, especially for mere recreational use, is not worth the increase in homicide rate that comes with it. I don't doubt that guns may be substituted with other (less lethal) weapons. I've said this a hundred times. The point you were making is that replacing guns with knives would have no effect on the homicide rate due to the criminals 'trying harder not to fail [to kill their victims].' Unintended does not mean unpreventable. It humours me that you demand better protection for American citizens when, in reality, you don't seem to care about anyone but yourself. You shrug off your country's abnormally high homicide rate as if it's not something to be concerned with. Yet, gun homicide is a huge issue in the United States right now. Longer than a few years, of course. The changes in culture and law will help speed up the process. What? Although lax gun law/attitude is the primary factor for the high homicide rate, it is not the sole factor. And, as we've discussed, there is a good chance that the crime rate of other (less lethal) weapons will increase. But, as we've also discussed, less lethal weapons will result in less deaths. Sound familiar? Intentional as in premeditated? A large amount, maybe, but certainly not the majority. Self-defense is necessary in almost any violent crime. A gun, though, is not a necessary means of self-defense. There is a clear distinction between violent crimes and unlucky accidents. It is no accident that the criminal pulled the trigger with the intention to cause serious bodily harm, if not death. Just because it wasn't the criminal's original intent doesn't mean we should classify it as an "accidental death."

- Weird choice of background. It's a good idea, but it looks like it spun out or something. Go for a side view background. You can even give the tail and rims some blur if you want to make it look like it's moving fast. - Not a fan of the white squares in the middle of the tires. - I still think the gradient colouring can be improved (removed) by using more density throughout the body Just my two cents. :)

More density would be cool if you're up for it. For example: (maybe not to that extent) With smaller text, it would be easier to create curves and form and such without losing legibility. You could also colour each text differently, rather than using gradients to create shading. You can use descriptive car-commercial-type words instead of repeating phrases. Most viewers won't read all of the text, anyways, so long as you emphasize certain points over others (like you've got now).

The best posters tend to place far more emphasis on the scene/header than the info-text. Gig posters aren't remembered for their entry fees. :P http://www.gigposters.com/potw/1

I'm no master of perspective, but I can give you a few pointers that might help you along. It looks to me like a mountain pass and a stream. If so, there are some things to keep in mind: To create depth, you should be using linear and atmospheric perspective. Read up on it here: http://daphne.palomar.edu/design/space2.html A simple example using a photo: Notice how the river gets thinner as it gets farther away? It "converges" to a single point (called the vanishing point). Also note how the mountains in the distance, behind the river, become more and more faded (atmospheric perspective). Notice how low the horizon is? (The horizon is basically the vanishing spot of the river, at the base of the larger mountains.)

From an advertising perspective, there is way too much going on. And I'm not a fan of the baby blue -- just doesn't seem to work with the whole spooky theme! Really awesome artwork, though. :thumbup: Very impressive detail!

The background is pretty dark -- if/when you touch it up, I'd use a light sky colour (like a blue-gray). Creative idea. The font is consistent and the text is relevant. :thumbup:

Add some colour. :lol:

How is this a space scene? Looks a little over-filtered. It's probably best to stay away from filters altogether.

I'm not arguing that absolutely no intent ever exists; surely carrying a loaded weapon for self-defense (or theft) suggests that the criminal has some knowledge that it may be used at some time on another human being, and surely there will be intent to kill (or at the very least to cause serious injury) at the moment the trigger is pulled. This, however, does not necessarily translate to the criminal making it their goal to kill the victim even after (s)he is incapacitated, nor does it mean that the criminal's original intention was to kill or even injure the victim. The simple fact that we see so many victims of knife and gun crime who weren't "finished off" by the criminals seems to suggest that, regardless of what kind of intent existed at the moment the criminal swung the knife or pulled the trigger, most criminals aren't following through to the end. In other words, although they may put more force into swinging a knife than they would pulling a trigger, in neither case are they putting so much as to ensure the death of the victim (something that often requires repeated stabbings or shootings). We may see this in crimes of passion and premeditated murder, but rarely is it seen in carjackings, robberies, barfights, domestic violence and other violent crimes 'gone wrong'. Gun availability will be lower, not non-existent. In response to lower demand, less guns will be manufactured. Old guns won't "vanish," but over time many of them will become lost, broken or destroyed. Well, "I have a dream..." ;) "Like, would criminals actually be swayed by this or not?" If most of them can't acquire firearms, does it really matter? "Will self-defense seekers have no reason for having self-defense anymore?" No, they will just have to seek alternative means of self-defense, as is the case in any other industrialized country. "Criminals always have the black market and other weapons to rely on." Only so long as guns remain highly available on the black market. And, as we've already mentioned, the other weapons are less lethal, thus tend to cause less deaths. "People have been dying forever so I don't see why you think guns are the root of this." Guns are the root of the sharp incline in the United States homicide rate. How many people murdered others in the distant past is irrelevant.

These look great. :thumbup: Only complaint is that I'd like to see them a little bigger, namely #4. :lol:

Sweet name. Mr. Vroom.

You're still assuming that they must have the intent to kill their victims. "If this were the case, criminals would simply shoot all their victims after having robbed them." Criminals know that a bullet or two to the chest won't always ensure death. If their intention is truly to kill the victim, they would put another bullet in the head (which isn't difficult when the victim is already incapacitated). You're forgetting the whole point of this. You argued earlier that criminals will try harder to kill their victims if given a less lethal weapon -- but this is only true in cases where a criminal had the deliberate intent of killing their victim (i.e. premeditation). In a society with such lax gun views, higher demand will inevitably result in higher availability. I've argued this many times before. Fixed.

Common sizes: 800x600 1024x768 1280x1024 etc. Here's a recent sketch for ConceptArg.org Daily Sketch. Topic: DINO-MOUNTED WRANGLER PURSUES ALIEN BUG THROUGH PLAYLAND "Bouncy dino in the playground." The lines and shading is pretty rough, but crits on general composition, perspective and anatomy are always welcome. :)

For the tree: - You can get away with using less colours. - Avoid radial gradients and pillow shading. Pick a light source (e.g. top left) and shade accordingly. Also remember that things aren't so uniform in life -- something like a tree should have more defining irregular shadows. - It's a little too smooth, and could do with some details. You don't need to go crazy, but you need to give it some variation. Dithering is fine to use even on a trunk of a tree, but it should be used scarcely. Dithering isn't something that we should be noticing, and it's mostly a technique to conserve colours. If you don't plan on conserving colours, you don't even really need to use dithering! :) Always save as a PNG or GIF when working with pixels, never as a JPEG. If you have more than 256 colours, save as a 24-bit PNG (the default in Paint, I think). Sometimes it's helpful to learn from photos as well as other artwork. [hide=] Notice how the tree is shaded as many shapes rather than a single shape? This is a great place for tree references: http://www.speedtree.com/tree_browser/[/hide] As for the character... Good start, but follow the above points. Avoid linear and radial gradients for shading, and try to use a light source that isn't coming directly from in front (i.e. camera/eyes). Also be sure to add some detail and wear and tear (like scratches on the metal). Lastly, be sure to use specular highlights and "shinyness" to really make the metal stand out. [hide=] [/hide] Cool stuff. Keep it up. :thumbup:

I like the pixel. It's a bit different from what we usually see. :) The "gallery" text needs some work, though, and the black outline on the speech bubble should be cleaned up.