Lovelydude

How is shooting a gun into the air going to "potentialy hurt" someone? Someone shooting a firearm in public is not potentially dangerous? You'd duck. Is it just me, or did anyone else find it odd that action man's trademark colour is a fluoro orange?

So it's better to potentially hurt someone, and break the law than let the criminals have a chance of getting away?

Noone was shot, I don't see the problem. Its just annoying that when someone mentions violence or guns in a thread here you get a half dozen quakers barking at you about violence being barbaric etc and lax gun laws when it is completely irrelevent. Violence is barbaric. You don't endanger people's safety by shooting firearms unless it's necessary. You find safety and common sense annoying?

Depends what kind of workout your doing. If you're properly lifting weights you shouldn't really work any muscle group more than once a week and have a full days rest in between workouts. That's a different story. You don't need to recooperate(sp?) or worry about over/under exercising certain muscles when you're doing sit-ups daily.

I'll dig up some old sketches first. They might be bad-ish quality since I suck at image manips. :cry: No working scanner atm D:

I for one think that a sketch thread would be a cool place to exhibit artwork, yet without undergoing heavy critiquage and also bring people from other parts of the board to the gallery. What are your thoughts on this? Would It be a good idea? Would you participate in the thread? Suggestions related to the idea would be much appreciated. Discuss.

I think it's illegal to shoot guns in a public area without justification. What your neighbour did was not awesome, both parties were in the wrong. Violence is bad kiddoes.

I dont understand what your saying, you would skate even if it did hurt other people as well as was illegal? I don't understand what your trying to get across. Just sympathising on the gun supporters part. I kind of understand now that they would be again prohibition of firearms, considering that they can be used and owned without negative effects. Anyway, its not that guns are part of history that they should be defended, its the fact that some people, a lot of people like guns FOR those reasons, or as a form of recreation. Basiclly, you ban guns out of fear and fear alone, and people lose some freedom. People who want to kill will, and murder will still go on. Actually, in reality, gun crime will remain the same, because people who want one for illegal acts dont care to listen to laws...obviously, and will find a illegal way to get them. Once theres a trade, it will be just as easy to get a gun, you just go to the alley behind the old gun store to buy them. Other people will use knifes or bludgeonsm, and even bombs. All you did is cut a few convienence crimes, which are rare, at the expence of of freedom. More then a few crimes I'd say. Guns allow you to kill someone with no time for reasoning. If you were to make a bomb to kill someone, you would not fulfill the crime if the reason for murder was purely anger related, and you were a rational thinking person. Though I agree it wouldn't make a huge difference, you can't say small improvements are not important, and do not warrant things like making guns illegal. As for smoking, i have to admit i am undecided about public smoking, but i myself have never seen physical proof that second hand smoking exists, and i have known many a smoker. For instance, my grandmother has smoked so much that her lungs dont work well at all, but my grandfather who is right next to her almost constantly, has perfect lungs as well as a perfect heart. Now you multiply that at least 10 and you have my experience.To be fair, I'm going to have to agree with the medical and scientific professionals on this one. It's not hard to believe smoking is harmful to others, so why question it when the potential is obvious, even if not true. Im also glad you at least understand me, im not real good at explaining my cause.You explain well enough.

You do realise that this thread is six months old?

Arthur C. Clarke, Ursula LeGuin, Douglas Adams and Terry Prattchett novels are all a good place to start for fantasy books.

Well, the nature of human beings pretty much makes it a given that violence and crime and stuff will occur. Guns are just giving people a way to commit those crimes more easily. Guns are part of history is a really bad excuse for keeping them legal. Smallpox is part of history, no-one wants it to run rampant again. Smoking does harm others, and I don't think that's worth debating. I don't care if you smoke on your own time, but smoking in public and stuff applies in the same way as weapons. As long as you're not affecting anyone else's wellbeing it's fine, to an extent. Food is a personal choice, and doesn't affect others based on your actions, however feeding children junk food and similar issues do not justify legal action. Here comes another analogy, watch out. If my skating were to affect others in a negative manner, I would be against decriminalisation and I would probably continue to put on my skates every day if it became illegal, but that does not mean it shouldn't be illegal. Also, directing me towards libertarianist views will not sway my opinion, I understand what you're trying to say anyway.

NO. It grows by exercising yes, but the exercise directly affects the growth, not the time spent after exercising. Exercising everyday is much more beneficial.

How can you debate that validity of freedom without guns? Giving people access to a weapon designed to kill comprimises freedom. I would feel much safer in a world where I knew almost everyone wasn't entitled to a way to kill anyone with little effort and decision making. I understand your point, but it's like banning smoking. Sure some people enjoy it and there are positive reasons for it being illegal, but the fact is that it's bad, and that life without them (cigarettes or guns) is better then life with them. For the most part, at least.

Dude, that's bull. Muscle doesn't grow right after you exercise. Train every day, it may be tiring at first, but the result will be much better. Whatever you do, do not train sporadically.

I made a really crappy edit to address a few issues. I don't think it's an improvement, but it's somewhat of a guide I suppose.

WeeBoab, can you give me a link to a website with very high quality signature works? A lot of the stuff I see, which is considered expert or brilliance is pretty much on par with, or worse then Zoidnerd's work. You seriously need to take a step back and see this, not just for technical prowess, but as something that looks nice. I think most of your signatures are quite good Zoidnerd, but you seem to stick to the same techniques and style a lot. Yes there is some variation, and you're way more diverse in that respect that almost everyone on these forums, but I feel like I know what to expect from you. D: Nice sigs. :lol:

With that mentality, doesn't no guns whatsoever seem a better option? Seriously, almost no-one on this forum actually requires a gun.

July 31st 1992.

I understand that some people on this forum want to defend guns, and blame it on the persons involved rather than the weapon, but, without easy access or any access at all, young children would have a far more challenging time commiting these massacres. A sixteen year old with a knife is much less formidable then one with a gun, and people would be willing to risk injury to halt the situation. Here's a question for all the gun supporters here. I don't even understand why anyone would support, guns anyway. What purpose do they serve for you?

Dude this does not warrant a thread..

Write a tut for my friends please :D

Awr, I wish I had someone like you to take shots of me blading D: Anyone who seems to take photos of me fails somehow. Seriously, I pulled about twenty 360 stale's over this rail, and you could only actually see what I was doing in one photo.

Holy crap! I should really think about painting, I need $550 soon, only $185 so far. D:

I think actually making the signature first would warrant a topic. There's nothing to critique at the moment.

I had to change the view of the face, but yeah this is what I think corresponds with your eye position best. There were a few anatomical errors that became evident whilst I was trying to link a nose with the already existing eyes and lips. I redid the lips, because the angle and shape was annoying me. The eyes were too far apart, features too far apart and disproportional. I couldn't really edit using your old features, but I hope this gives you some idea for a nose. I'm aware it doesn't correspond with the face. To make it work I would have to spend more then a few minutes on it. D: It's nowhere near a perfect edit, but I think it expresses what I'm trying to say. I think you should keep this piece how it is, but come your next portrait you should try to incorporate more realism. It looks good how it is now, but I think it would have been better, had you put a nose on her in the first place. Good work.