“Apple released another beta of iOS 10 yesterday, and among the changes in that release was the introduction of a squirt gun emoji that replaced the hand gun emoji that had previously been available,” Jim Lynch writes for CIO. “I’m running beta four of iOS 10 so I verified the change yesterday after doing my upgrade, the handgun emoji is no longer available.”
“Before I get any further into this post, you should know that I’m a life member of the NRA, so my perspective on guns certainly does not match Apple’s,” Lynch writes. “I’ve been a life member for a long time now, and I always recommend that folks join the NRA to help protect 2nd amendment rights.”
More than one hundred new and redesigned emoji characters will be available to iPhone and iPad users this fall with iOS 10. This exciting update brings more gender options to existing characters, including new female athletes and professionals, adds beautiful redesigns of popular emoji, a new rainbow flag and more family options. Apple is working closely with the Unicode Consortium to ensure that popular emoji characters reflect the diversity of people everywhere. — Apple’s official statement about iOS 10 emoji changes
“Take very careful note of the sentence that mentions ‘popular emoji characters reflect the diversity of people everywhere,’ Lynch writes. “Apple is using what it considers to be the language of inclusion, while at the same time excluding people like me who own handguns and who use them safely and legally. So much for real diversity and inclusion on Apple’s part. Apparently diversity doesn’t include lawful gun owners in America and other parts of the world.”
“When a corporation’s power and software is used to slowly edge out free expression within its products then I think it’s time to step back and think carefully about supporting that company. Remember that getting rid of the handgun emoji was the second step after blocking the implementation of the rifle emoji, there will be more of this kind of ideological censorship coming from Apple in the future,” Lynch writes. “For me this means a freeze on buying any new Apple products for the foreseeable future.”
Much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Whether this fiasco was indeed prompted by a bug report about the handgun emoji (see the full article) or not, Apple would do better to more deeply consider their actions before acting like sanctimonious fools. Is this really a well-thought-out plan or just a knee-jerk reaction?
Perhaps a drop in product sales might be the wakeup call Apple’s brass so obviously needs to remind them that, like freedom of speech, diversity means actual diversity, not just including the types of people or entertaining thoughts or speech with which you happen to agree.
Some people have said that I shouldn’t get involved politically because probably half our customers are Republicans – maybe a little less, maybe more Dell than ours. But I do point out that there are more Democrats than Mac users so I’m going to just stay away from all that political stuff because that was just a personal thing. — Steve Jobs, August 2004
SEE ALSO:
Open Thread: Should Apple code their OSes to block video games that glorify guns and murder? – August 3, 2016
Apple removes handgun emoji, replaces it with a squirt gun – August 1, 2016
Apple’s politics may be hurting its brand – June 29, 2016
Apple CEO Steve Jobs: ‘I’m going to just stay away from all that political stuff’ – August 25, 2004
What a cretinous moronic ammosexual troll! Getting upset about an emoji?!? Take your guns and pry it up your cold, dead butt. Go ahead, buy Samsung- maybe they’ll come out with a model that you can shoot yourself with.
Do you not see it as hypocritical that there are features to include the diversity of different groups….but at the same time features are taken away from another group.
If they took away the American flag as an emoji I’m sure other people would have a similar response.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me. — Martin Niemöller
…and finally they turned my EMOJI in a squirt gun!
As stated elsewhere within these threads: The issue isn’t the emoji itself. The issue is Apple’s “thought process” (or lack thereof) behind the change.
It’s called political correctness, the religion of progressives. Expect Apple’s decisions to become increasingly absurd. For all the talk about diversity, I’d love to see the proportion of Democrats to Republicans at Apple, you can bet your ass that 90%+ are Obama voters. To each his own, but if you’re a group-thinking hivemind, expect braindead decisions like this one to happen often, we just won’t hear about most of them, but the stock will reflect it.
And I shot them with my legally purchased assault rifle. ,
Must be a mental nut like the rest of them?
I understand why he is upset. When Apple removed the handgun, all of his real guns turned into squirt guns and his NRA membership was automatically discontinued. Apple shouldn’t have done that.
This switch will have a big impact on gun owners lives. The minute more than 50% of Americans click the squirt gun emoji the 2nd amendment will automatically be deleted.
Apple should immediately stop using emojis as an electronic voting machine. He should be mad as hell!
The issue isn’t the emoji itself. The issue is Apple’s “thought process” (or lack thereof) behind the change.
Their thought process is clear. They believe that kids are easily influenced and MAYBE (nobody knows for sure) by removing these influences we will have fewer incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook.
Ok, with that established, what is it that bothers you about their “Thought Process”?
Only kids use iPhones and iPads? How does changing an emoji stop the insane from shooting up schools, exactly?
So you want separate EMOJIS for adults? Will messages be blocked when sent to minors?
Nobody knows if it will work or not, but MAYBE when kids get messages like “I hate you” with a squirt gun, it will have a different meaning then “I hate you” with a real gun.
You can’t see that?
If you believe that the gun emoji causes kids to pick up a gun and shoot others, you might as well get rid of the cigarette and martini glass emoji since they can make the kids smoke and drink too.
The difference between his post and his response to you are indicative of someone who is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Which shouldn’t be a surprise considering his name.
I knew this emoji thing was headed to left field when the “diversity” issue of different colored emoji faces reared its ugly head.
Damn, I really hate it when I have to agree with First2014. But when he’s right, he’s right. Banning the emoji of guns is just silly — and hopefully, it’s just a bug in the beta. Banning guns is also stupid. Common-sense gun regulations is a whole ‘nother story (for a whole different forum).
But we still have the bomb, and more INFLUENTIAL emojis
Bullcrap, Fwhatever. The issue is that Apple did something that you did not like, so you link it to Stalin, Hitler, etc. and start screaming Constitution and such. It really smacks of Chicken Little. If you are going to get worked up about an emoji, then who will pay any attention to you if you happen to have a legitimate gripe? Get over the persecution complex and the leftist blame game. You seem to be relatively intelligent, so you must realize that things are much more complex than a binary left/right and that you cannot truly understand or solve any problem with such a simplistic approach. It works for getting votes, perhaps, but not for taking productive action. Grow up.
Thanks for showing that u r an f’ing idiot
Get a Windows PC, most TRUMPET’S have them.
The thing is… the squirt gun is more inclusive. Some people are legally NOT allowed to possess a firearm… but I don’t know anyone who can’t own a water pistol.
It’s still a gun, after all… and emoji are all about symbols and what they represent.
They took a specific emoji and made it less specific. What’s the problem?
Spot on definition of diversity, Mr. MDN.
NRA Daily News strikes again. Tomorrow it is time for Limbo(augh) Daily News and then all weekend for Putans pet Fake Billionaire Tramp Weekend News.
And if the topic were something homosexual you’d be out waving the new colored flag emoji. It’s always about free speech unless it’s something “right wing.” Then it’s time for the Thought Gestapo to eradicate it.
What an absolutely ridiculous response to a minor change that has little effect on anyone’s life.
It’s a freaking emoji, get over it.
As was written so clearly by F14,T16:
The issue isn’t the emoji itself. The issue is Apple’s “thought process” (or lack thereof) behind the change.
Then Apple is committing a “Thought Crime” ?
In my opinion, the issue is the fact that Fwhatever and NRA nuts will take any opportunity to play the “I am being persecuted” card. It is just a frigging emoji, not a threat to your Constitutional rights. I personally don’t care about emojis one way or the other, and it baffles me why it is so important that rifle and handgun emojis exist. I can understand the smiley face, sad face, crying face, etc. They expressed an emotion in a highly condensed manner. But what does a handgun emoji even mean, anyway?
Should Apple have deleted it? Probably not. Not only did it stir up the gun nuts, but it probably does not make any material difference to our society. Gun nuts will likely just substitute something else to serve in place of the missing emoji. Again, who cares?
As a gun owner, NRA member, and veteran why would we want a gun emoji? Guns are not toys they are tools for killing and defense. They do not need to be in jokes and cartoons.
Thank you for cutting through all the political BS, Tom. I’m not a fan of American gun culture, and I’m sure we’d disagree on many things, but at the end of the day, emoji are meant to be a lighthearted way to express oneself. The idea that a realistic looking handgun is needed to make an emoji-related point is beyond ridiculous.
Guns are for firing a projectile at a target whether you target shoot, hunt game, shoot to stop (defend), or shoot to kill (homicide / suicide). A side benefit of having a gun is deterrence as SOME people choose not do bad things to others because they may become the target. And of course, guns are misused by some for things like robbery, intimidation, assault, battery, and / or murder. With all this said I think this emoji change has no bearing on second amendment.
I’ll give you one reason why I want a gun emoji. I happen to use it in my reminders for monthly club meetings and to correspond with friends when we go to the range.
Other people find that they can use their vocabulary.
I guess you lead an emoji-free life. Good for you.
Because spelling gun takes two more characters?
Yours, is a pretty ridiculous rationale for having a gun emoji.
Since guns are pretty much manhood enhancers, just use the eggplant emoji. If that’s not enough, just increase the font size.
Better check your sources on that implication
Type the reminder “gun.” Horrific problem solved. Or substitute an emoji – do they have a bullseye target emoji? A deer?
Yeah, that’s genius. Why didn’t I think of that?
If you feel this way, then to be consistent, the alcohol, knife, bomb, skull and cross bones emojis should be removed since when should they “be in jokes and cartoons?”
I’d have to agree with MDN’s take on this one
We believe in equality for everyone, regardless of race, age, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. – CEO Tim Cook, Apple Inc. “Diversity” page.
Unless your religion conflicts with our CEO’s LGBT crusade and then you’re shit out of luck.
By the way, here’s a snapshot of Apple’s “Diversity” page for 2014, around when it first appeared. In it, Cook makes no mention of religion. He added it later when that omission was pointed out to him. He gives it lip service, but does not believe in protecting religious freedom.
Now that gay marriage is legal, your religious rights are imposed. Now you can’t practice what you believe which is marry who you want and then tell everyone else who they should marry as well. You lost your freedom to dictate. I can see why that bothers you.
I didn’t say anything about marriage.
If not marriage, then how does LGBT rights impose on anybody’s religious freedom? Who religious practice is being restricted?
Like being forced to bake a gay wedding cake?
You don’t think that infringes on religious beliefs?
I never heard of a Gay wedding cake. What are the ingredients? I never tried to make one.
I believe it is having a cake baked with a gay theme to it. I know that concept maybe hard to fathom but think of someone forcing your child to have a gun theme on their birthday cake.
Not to derail us here, but the interesting thing about this sentiment is that marriage is, in fact, a religious institution. The government shouldn’t be involved in it at all. The government should most definitely be involved in who can file taxes jointly, who can receive survivor benefits of a partner, who can be considered a household for insurance purposes, and so on.
The problem here isn’t that religions feel they can no longer dictate who can get “married”. The problem here is that religions feel as though the government is overstepping its bounds and commandeering that which is a religious institution; even if it’s just the word.
Were you to not call the tax status “married”, change the license name to purely be a legal thing (household partnership or whatever), and then let folks do whatever they want to celebrate the partnership (in a church if that’s something their religion will do, or just on the beach or in your living room if that’s what you want) you’d have a lot less strife.
Extremely well thought out. Your reasoning is spot on. Definitely the best post of the day on this subject.
Thank you for pointing this out! I wish more people thought like you.
The marriages were widely recorded in Anglo Saxon times ( roughly 5th to 10th century AD ) and was well known in other cultures long before that. The Catholic church started discussing the sacrament of marriage in the 11th century and it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments. Therefore if any party has commandeered the institution of marriage, it is the church.
Marriage is a long established term for people formally committing to each other and is used in many cultures and religions, whether done as a religious ceremony, or as a legal procedure.
Kevin – You’re wrong. Marriage has been around a lot longer than modern religions. Marriage may have a religious ceremony, but it’s fundamentally a civil contract — and ALWAYS has been.
If this is true, why are so many people having trouble with the concept of Gay Marriage. As far as government is concerned this is a “contract” nothing more and recognized as such equally for all and gender neutral.
When I go into a Real Estate contract, the validity of the contract doesn’t depend on my gender, why should a marriage contract be any different.
If a church doesn’t want to host a ceremony in their church that is their business. I am find with that, but government shouldn’t concern itself with these matters.
As far as who “owns” the world “Marriage”–nobody does. Outside of Trademark law nobody owns words so unless Marriage (c) has a trademark or copyright notice next to it, therefor nobody owns the word “marriage” and should not try to claim they own it’s meaning.
“… the interesting thing about this sentiment is that marriage is, in fact, a religious institution. The government shouldn’t be involved in it at all.”
Wrong. Marriage is a legal contract. And has such the government should be very much involved.
You can have a a marriage without getting a church involved at all.
nearly all words have more than one definition in the dictionary:
Atom:
1. a hypothetical particle of matter so minute as to admit of no division.
2. anything extremely small; a minute quantity.
Therefore:
Marriage:
1. A word used in Church Ceremonies to Unite man and woman
2. A word used by government to represent the union of 2 people
What’s wrong with that?
The idea of government supporting marriage was to strengthen traditional families. Now that the word “family” has been redefined to mean anything, that goal has gone down the toilet.
The gun emoji has nothing to do with gay marriage or legal rights, but since you brought it up, I’ll respond.
The government attached benefits to a marriage license (joint tax returns, ability to make medical decisions, etc.) because it believed that promoting monogamous relationships was better for child-bearing, child-rearing, and society as a whole. Whether you agree or disagree with this doesn’t change the fact of why government used it to support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Keeping in mind that promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship.
The common sense approach would be to attach any benefits to a Civil Union if the government believes promoting traditional marriage is no longer beneficial to society. Then, everyone would have equal rights. The general term “marriage” could be used for the actual ceremony itself or a new term could be coined. “Christian marriage” could be reserved for the church to designate as it sees fit.
But rather than using common sense, we live in a nation where one group feels it necessary to force their opinions on everyone else.
💩
whatever!
Personally I’m greatly reassured that Apple is a company with a conscience and morals. I don’t always agree with Apple’s stands, but I think that it’s good that they are prepared to stand up and do what they believe is right.
In other countries, companies adopt political or ethical stances and it’s not a big deal. Only America seems to be so utterly polarised that a picture of a toy water pistol can become such an emotive subject.
Apple is not omniscient.
The issue isn’t the emoji itself. The issue is Apple’s “thought process” (or lack thereof) behind the change.
I’m pretty sure you weren’t in on the deliberations so you don’t actually know what that process was. You’re inferring from the outcome, as is the author of the original article. Apple is “far left” only depending upon where you think the center is.
Apple have clearly thought about this issue and have come to a decision that doesn’t suit you. Get over it.
As a shareholder, I’m impressed that Apple has the balls to rattle the cages of the NRA and other gun worshippers. It demonstrates that Apple has confidence in itself and it increases my confidence in the company.
It is not the function of to pontificate morals on anyone and alienate customers and potential customers, it’s their job to make the best electronics and to make their shareholder money. That. Is. All.
“Make Apple great again….dump Tim Cook.”
Does a company with “conscience and morals” build its products in sweat shops? I don’t think so.
Apple is just another company.
You’re kidding, right? You’d by an android phone or… gasp… a windows phone… because of an emoji?
he likes Dangerous things.
I’ve used a Windows phone. Worst piece of crap out there.
And yeah, this entire thread is a bad joke. Gun nuts, are nuts.
Not simply because of an emoji but it could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Personally, I’m disappointed with Apple for multiple reasons right now. This is yet one more.
Then please go. As they say at Disney “Find your magic – or emoji’s – elsewhere.”
OMG everyone. Tim Cook is going to jump the shark. He’s really going to do it. Skinny, pasty little Mr. Burns legs nearly buckling as he approaches the jump.
Is there an emoji for ” Hey Tim, stop with the stupid emojis and spend more time fixing your software and updating your hardware. By the way, where’s the updated MacPro? And, keep the hell out of politics”
This is one of the most ridiculous over reactions I have ever read. It’s a goddamned emoji. And it’s a beta… This happens in every beta, stuff gets removed constantly and put back. And if it is a bug with it, then it’ll be back. Jesus Christ.
No, it’s not a “bug,” but the emoji change may be in response to some random iOS bug report. Basically someone misused the big reporting to make a political statement (they want U.S. citizens to be disarmed and helpless like many Europeans; they want only the government, terrorists and other criminals to have the guns, stupidly) and Apple actually did it.
Or it could actually be a bug. Never jump to conclusions without complete information. And don’t assign malice to what can be explained by incompetence.
Oh you make me sick. I don’t want whatever you have. Maybe give your head a shake?
Cupertino, why not let the consumers decide if they want to use the emoji or not?
Therein lies the rub.
Tim Cook’s Apple is not interested in freedom of expression – even in a product designed to express thoughts freely – how ironic! Tim Cook’s Apple is interested in dictating expression.
Seems like they’e been doing a pretty good job of figuring out exactly what’s important to a large majority of consumers as well. They’ve certainly done better at predicting the future than you have Mr. 2008/2012/2016/2020 guy..
Why don’t you whiners start your own company and build something better with all these choices that are so important to you, and the Constitution or whatever. Let’s see how well you succeed and choosing what consumers want and need.
Get back to us in a few years, after you’ve likely lost a few more elections ok?
I’m completely anti gun and the original emoji didn’t bother me at all, if the removal of it bothers you that much then you really need to look at your priorities, if you see this as even remotely important then there is something very wrong.
If the original emoji bothered Apple so much that they removed it, then they really need to look at their priorities, if Apple sees this as even remotely important then there is something very wrong.
random 2 cent thoughts:
— watched an Anthony Bourdain (traveller , writer, chef) episode where he visited a Midwest state and made the comment that there is a divide in the USA: in some parts, mainly cities Guns were seen as dangerous, weapons of criminals etc while in a whole swatch of rural areas and in the midwest they were common and part of life, kids grew up with them. The Pro anti gun people generally fall on both sides of this divide.
— I notice that advocates for causes that Apple supports seldom reciprocate, i.e they almost NEVER ASK their supporters to BUY Apple because Apple supports their cause. For example Apple is pro Gay rights, Diversity, Green energy etc yet how often have you seen leaders in these movements say “Buy Apple because they are behind us” ?
For this post I googled “African American leaders urge followers to buy Apple because of Apple’s support of diversity”, the results NOTHING of relevance.
Also say a person supports Green technology would that person pick a ‘Green’ roofer if his roofing product LEAKS? nope, 99% of consumers only care if the product is GOOD , not some political stand (from my personal anecdotal observation ) of the company.
so Apple (whose stock P.E is rock bottom like one third google’s, i.e if it had Google’s/Alphabets P.E the stock price would be 300+) is potentially risking antagonizing a whole bunch of people (gun owners) with very little monetary gain.
(look I understand not everything is money, there’s morals but still i wanted to point that out).
— as others have noted Apple has some serious PRODUCT issues like the Mac line.
as i’ve shown before, tests show a 2010 Mac Pro with upgraded video in a GPU test is almost three times faster than a current D700 cylinder Mac Pro… (this is absurd).
if apple needs to do this emoji thing, OK, but spare a few dudes to do products maybe ?
(and where the Mac marketing? Macs made more money than iPads last april yet no Mac ads, not even cheap web ads. no marketing PR guys available, all working on emojis ? )
Actually, let us ban all television and movies that have guns and use them in a violent manner. Oh wait, then democrats and the liberal Hollywood douchebags would be out of a job, can’t have that now, can we? Where do you think kids get these ideas about violence and fun use? Yup, TV and movies which glorify violence.
You left out music, or what some people call music anyway.
Meanwhile: This is just a beta of iOS 10. Those doing beta testing, report back to Apple with Feedback report requesting the gun back again. The beta ain’t over ’til it’s over.
I”m rather shocked at MDN’s reaction – using such hyperbole as “fiasco” over an emoji? seriously? if you truly want diversification then does that include swastickers or satanic symbols – where does it end? with all the shooting going on i don’t think we need to support guns anymore than they already are. i also don’t see cigarette or pot emoji – do you feel we should have those?
Poor analogy.
Guns have good, practical uses (shooting, hunting, self-defense).
Swastikas and satanic symbols — not so much.
So Apple customers are going to toss all of their Apple devices in the trash because of this trivial change?
I fucking hate guns, never held one, fired one or had any inclination to do so.
Fuck guns and fuck the NRA, the pathetic mouthpiece for the arms industry that masquerades as a members club.
Well Rasta,
Aren’t you glad you live in a world where you can express your opinion without reserve? In the US, that speech is protected by the 1st amendment. So, now just think if there was a movement to repeal that right? You would freak to death if that happened. My point is there is the 2nd amendment, and it is protected as much as your right to spout off. So fuck off and try to take my fucking guns. There, now I feel better. And I’m NRA too….
Oh you fuck off. No one is taking anything away from you except in this case an emoji.
No one is talking about appealing your right. It’s about applying that right with some 21st century common-fucking sense, which you and your members fail to see or possess.
The 2nd amendment was written 240 years and 30 days ago. It does not apply today as it did then. Just as many aspects of the bible would not apply in todays world. It’s called history for a reason.
And of course you’re NRA.
The Ten Commandments were written 5,000 years ago…they don’t apply today either?
Oh so you’re a believer in the 10 commandments and organized refiction, er I mean religion?
Your line is over here sir.
You are a disbeliever in decency? You’ve “over” since Gomorrah, jackass.
So why don’t they remove the 💣 emoji?
Imagine a situation where someone sends a “squirt gun” emoji pointing at a smiley face to a non-apple phone…
Standards exist for a reason… companies shouldn’t just decide to change them on a whim… (look at Internet Explorer…)
Which part of …”Apple is working closely with the Unicode Consortium”… did you not understand?
In other words, Apple isn’t making changes on a whim. It is working with the Unicode consortium.
Changes will be implemented in non-Apple devices as well. No need to worry about that squirt gun pointing at a smiley face.
Members of the NRA are probably the most actively engaged lobbying group of all in America. While nowhere near the most numerous, or the richest, or the highest contributor, NRA has the advantage of by far the most active grass-roots network. No other advocacy group has as active and engaged members as the NRA.
In America, numerous surveys and polls have confirmed, year after year, that over 80% of the American population supports some gun regulation and restrictions. If you regulate cars (requiring registration and driver licenses), which practically every adult American needs in order to lead a meaningful life, there is no logical explanation why lawful gun owners can’t be required to obtain licenses before getting guns, and why guns shouldn’t be registered. Anyway, as I said, over 80% of Americans support gun regulation. This isn’t a made-up number, it is a fact that even NRA occasionally admits.
Unfortunately, when a gun-regulation bill comes up for a vote, your congressmen and senators receive 200 to 1 phone calls in opposition to any such law. This also isn’t a made-up number, it is real. NRA members call and visit their lawmakers almost without exception. This shouldn’t be such a big surprise. They aren’t called on to support some convoluted five-point plan or platform; all they are asked to do is say ‘NO’. A simple message, no complicated language, no complicated explanation — just NO to ANY gun laws. A little bit of scary paranoid warnings (“They are coming to take your guns away!!!”) is plenty to motivate even the slackest of members. That makes it easy for anyone and everyone who owns a gun to call or go to their senator and tell them what they think about the law.
Gun control advocates can’t ever hope to mobilise anywhere near the numbers that NRA has, even thought five times more people in the country actually disagree with the NRA. They are a very diverse and disparate group that often disagrees on various other matters, unlike the NRA with near-perfect unity of purpose.
America will continue to pay the ultimate price (with human lives) for the privilege of the few to own fire arms without any restrictions.
Whenever you talk about restricting any rights, not just guns, it’s not so much a loophole as it is a Constitutional concern. Obviously dangerous people should not have guns if they are likely to commit a crime with them. BUT: in the U.S. there is this thing called “due process” which is guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. No one can or should have their civil liberties taken from them without a judge or jury first deciding that they can indeed be stripped of that civil liberty. If you allow otherwise, in the end you are permitting minor government bureaucrats decide what rights you do or do not have as a citizen. And as anyone who has had to go through the DMV to get a driver’s license, you know that such workers do not always have the best interest of that citizen in mind when making a decision. There also needs to be a mechanism in place that gives right to appeal a decision that strips civil liberties. One way that a spouse or partner in a domestic relationship sometimes seeks revenge on his/her partner is to wrongfully accuse them of being dangerous. They are then wrongly stripped of their guns. Even under the current system, it’s often difficult for them to get those guns back, sometimes never.
A registry would also list all the gun owners who HAVEN’T committed a crime and never will, and you should not punish the majority of a population just because of a few bad guys, especially when we’re talking about a Constitutional right. Anyway, if a person is dangerous enough to lose their Constitutional rights, maybe they ought to be in jail?
I am not going to register my gun willingly just because, for example, some lowlife might harm his wife. If the abuser is so intent on harming that woman, what is preventing him from taking a baseball bat to her head, or shooting her with a crossbow, or an arrow, or hitting her with an axe, or hitting her with a hammer, or strangling her, or running her down with a car, or poisoning her, or pushing her down a set of stairs as he stalks her somewhere, or a million other scenarios? — Nothing. So all we get is an unwanted registry and the woman is still unsafe. Doesn’t sound like much of a solution to me, you sound more like someone wants to scapegoat guns when the problem is with the person wielding that gun or other weapon.
Thank you for a very intelligent and substantive response. I can see how your argument makes sense in some academic discussion.
In practice, though, it is difficult to accept all of it, in face of strong statistical data that points to direct correlation between gun regulation and gun violence, and in every segment.
Why did America (never mind the rest of the world) accept regulating cars? After all, as you clearly mention, the process clearly poses a threat to individual liberties. Apparently, when the famous 2nd amendment to the constitution was adopted (1791), there were no cars, so the right to drive cars couldn’t have been enshrined in the constitution. When it became clear that cars were dangerous machines, states started requiring registration and licensing.
You say that “one should not punish the majority […] just because of few bad guys”, implying that registering an ownership of a gun is somehow a punishment for something. I’m not quire sure how is that a punishment.
As for the final argument (“what is preventing the abuser from taking a baseball bat, crosbow, arrow, axe, hammer”, etc), it may make some logical sense, but in practice, it doesn’t hold up. Data clearly shows that in the households with guns, there is much greater likelihood of a lethal outcome of a domestic violence altercation than in those without. This makes a lot of sense: when a drunken husband gets angry, he can pull out a gun and squeeze the trigger. The outcome is instantaneous and irreversible. If no gun is available, he can pick up a bat, axe, knife, arrow, and the victim has the time to respond. The outcome is a lot less certain (and statistical data clearly shows this).
Generally, data paints a very clear picture: in situations of conflict, when guns are available, the outcome is significantly more likely to be lethal than in the same situations where guns aren’t available. And this doesn’t even begin to address issue of accidental death from the firearm.
The entire myth that 2 million Americans annually use their gun in self-defense (according to the NRA) has long been debunked. Several extensive studies show that American gun owners are more likely to have their guns stolen from them (and then used against them) than they are to successfully defend themselves from an intruder. The entire premise of the gun-ownership advocates that “the only thing that could stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” is based on made-up myth and has no basis in reality. Guns (legally owned) are used significantly more for homicide and suicide than for self-defense.
I honestly don’t know what is the best solution for your country, but what you currently have is clearly not working. You have by far the highest number of gun-related deaths per capita in all of the developed world (and in most of the developing world!), and the data seems to indicate that the only reason for that is your non-existent gun regulation.
It depends how you define “clearly not working” because I would say it is working. What country has had freedom and democracy longer than the USA?
What country are you from? We can compare results.
When I say “clearly not working”, I am talking about the highest per-capita gun deaths in the developed world (by far). Literally all of Europe and Asia (and this includes Russia!) has lower gun-related deaths than the US. Even Mexico has better numbers!
Something is clearly not right when a civilized country with a highly functioning judicial system and law enforcement has so disproportionately high rate of firearm deaths per capita.
As for the democracy, I’m not sure I would be proud of this year’s presidential candidates. The two-party dictatorship has lead to a situation where vast majority of population doesn’t really want to vote for either of the two main candidates, but will end up doing exactly that (choosing, with a pinched nose, a lesser of two evils).
As for my own country, I have very little to be proud of; the place went through numerous wars over the past 70 years, with significant border changes, so it would be hard for me to even figure out specifically which country I’m referring to (the place I was born in is no longer in my own country…). Between the communist dictatorship and the parade of various political parties tossing the presidency between each other, the net result is still a struggling economy in transition.
Having lived in the developed world for over 25 years, however, gave me a good insight in the democratic processes.
You forget that guns are highly regulated and there are thousands of gun laws already on the books. You also are blind to the fact that CRIMINALS do not care or heed gun laws. So in effect, gun laws are useless for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Come to California and see how many hoops you need to jump through to purchase a handgun. Then go out on the street and ask your local gang member if they purchased their guns legally. Now do you finally get the point that CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS? This is not a random fact, but set in stone. All these gun laws do is infringe on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
The problem aren’t criminals with illegal guns. The biggest problem in your country is gun deaths that happen from legally purchased and legally owned guns.
You see, for those criminals who have illegally obtained guns, data shows that they are much more likely going to use them against each other. While gun deaths are gun deaths, I think we can all agree that regular, law-abiding citizens are much less concerned about the gun violence among criminals themselves, when such violence is extremely unlikely to involve ordinary, law-abiding citizens.
You see, the problem in America is that the small percentage of American population that loves their guns so much continues to buy the baseless NRA scare propaganda about the danger of guns at the hands of criminals. The reality is that such risk is practically negligible for an ordinary American; it is far more likely that you’ll get struck by lightning, or hit by a bus, or die in an airplane crash, than get killed by a criminal with an illegally-purchased gun. In fact, if you live in a household with guns, you are much more likely to be killed by a that gun (intentionally or accidentally), than you are by a criminal with an illegal gun. There is plenty of data from many extensive studies in America supporting that. The “Stand your ground” confrontations (where an intruder was met by the home owner) have much worse outcomes for the homeowners when the homeowner has a gun; if the intruder is the only person with the gun, data shows that he will almost never fire it (because the home owner will almost always comply when threatened with a gun); once the homeowner’s gun enters the equation, the likelihood of the intruder using that firearm is significantly higher. So, the chances of homeowner dying goes from close to 0% up to at least 50% or even higher (remember, intruder is the one who prepared for the invasion; homeowner is caught by surprise, and the intruder won’t wait for the homeowner to fire his gun first).
The American gun lobby has one main “common sense” argument — self-defense. Unfortunately, that argument has no basis in reality or facts. Of all the incidents where gun was involved, self-defense represents negligible percentage.
So, we come to the only remaining defensible argument: 2nd ammendment. In other words, Guns can’t be regulated because the constitution, written 240 years ago, doesn’t allow it, never mind the consequences. As legally powerful as this argument is, it is a very thin fig leaf to hide behind.
As I said before, your country will continue to pay a heavy price (in human lives) for the privilege of its few gun lovers to hoard firearms without any restrictions.
Forget the gun emoji. Fake Billionaire Tramp (Putans pet) will soon demand Apple to nuke the emojis.
“Donald Trump Repeatedly Asked Why We Couldn’t Use Nukes”
“Three times he asked, at one point, if we have them, why can’t we use them? Three times, in an hour briefing, why can’t we use nuclear weapons.”
First Apple hosts a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and now this?
That should show its customers – and the world – who’s lining their pockets with Cash and wiping their butts. Because it’s surely not their customers.
I bet Steve Jobs is rolling in his grave right now.
Definitely not. Steve was Zen Buddhist and a close friends to Clinton family and a Democrat.
I stand corrected. 🙂