“An American woman in her 60s was knifed to death and five others injured during a bloodbath attack carried out by a Norwegian-Somali man in central London last night,” Michelle Higgins, Jonny Byrne and Danny Collins report for The Sun. “Witnesses described victims ‘screaming and covered in blood’ following the rampage in which the woman was brutally knifed by a man around 10.30pm.”
“Other terrified onlookers described the crazed knifeman chasing pedestrians and ‘lunging for anyone he could see’ as police confirmed mental health was a likely factor,” Higgins, Byrne and Collins report. “A 19-year-old man was arrested at the scene after being tasered by police in Russell Square.”
“Those injured were British, Australian, Israeli and another American,” Higgins, Byrne and Collins report. “Fernando, 40, a paralegal from Brazil, said: “I was cycling by and people screamed at me to stop… ‘She had been stabbed in the back. She was bleeding. There was an English man who was white, I’d say around 45. He had been stabbed in the side. Then there was another lady. I didn’t know her nationality but I think she was white. She was in her twenties. She had been stabbed in her arm.'”
So, in the wake of this horrific London stabbing rampage, will Apple do what they obviously believe to be the Right Thing To Do™ and replace their evil knife emoji in iOS with an innocuous plastic spork?
Oh, and after you save the world from cartoon knives, you might want to work on those cartoon bombs, swords, and other assorted “dangerous” cartoons you’ve still got there, m’kay?
Enjoy sliding down your slippery slope, Apple execs! Hopefully, the end result will be to knock some common sense into your heads.
The views and opinions expressed in this article by Lucas Tamborelli are those of Lucas Tamborelli’s and do not necessarily reflect those of MacDailyNews.
“Enjoy sliding down your slippery slope, Apple execs! Hopefully, the end result will be to knock some common sense into your heads.”
Don’t bank on it.
The type of “thinking” that can get to “replace that with a squirt gun” usually can’t be cured — even with pure logic thrown in their faces. They’re too far down the Dem/Lib/Prog rabbit hole.
Knives have MANY uses OTHER than for killing people. In fact, out of all the useful ways that we use knives, the concept of using one as a weapon to kill other people is something only psychotics would think of.
On the other hand, handguns ONLY have ONE purpose… And that is to kill other people.
You DON’T use a handgun for hunting.
You DON’T use a handgun for eating.
You DON’T use a handgun as a tool for cutting things.
The idea behind this article titled “In wake of London stabbing rampage, will Apple replace their knife emoji with a plastic spork?”, makes very little sense. Lucas, you should have thought about more about it before writing this ill-conceived article.
As was published in another article yesterday:
In an open letter to Apple the Disarm the iPhone movement said,
“We ask that you stand with the American people and remove the gun emoji from all your products as a symbolic gesture to limit gun accessibility. We understand taking the emoji out will not end gun violence, but this act will show Congress that gun-owning and non-owning Americans have come together to demand required background checks for ALL gun sales.”
This comes in the wake of several recent mass shooting incidents such as the Orlando night club where 50 people were killed and 53 injured, the Dallas protest where five police officers where killed and nine injured, and the San Bernardino holiday party where 14 people were killed and 22 injured.
Changing an emoji in iOS 10 isn’t going to stop gun violence or mass shootings, but it is a way for Apple to show support for changes to gun laws.
But Lucas, if you DON’T support reducing the epidemic of gun violence, then I can understand why you would be upset by Apple changing the emoji to show their support.
But, if you REALLY NEED to have a handgun emoji to use when you send a threatening text to someone saying you are going to kill them, just find an image of a gun of your choice and add it to you threatening text message… Problem solved. 😉
When you say “changes to gun laws,” to what are you referring?
There is no epidemic of gun violence.
Crooked Hillary, like other Democrats of her ilk, including you, speak in generalities about gun violence and are always willing to exaggerate or outright lie about guns in order to advance their own agenda.
“There is no epidemic of gun violence.”
Are you writing from an alternate universe where when you shot someone it makes them healthier???
It seems to be from your (cough, cough, fake) chart, that the more guns that people own, the less gun homicides there are. Uh, yeah. That would only make sense to a very crazy person.
In reality (you know, that “reality” thing you may have heard of) the annual gun homicides in the USA have increased over the years, with currently between 30,000 and 40,000 people killed in the USA, and many more injured for life each year. For comparison, there are less than 50 gun homicides a year in Japan.
How much larger number than 30,000 and 40,000 people a year would it take for you to consider gun deaths a “epidemic”??? If it is even more than that, you probably won’t have to wait much longer to reach it.
But if you think that things get better the more guns there are, and the more bullets go into people, you may start believing that bullets are like vitamin pills, and they are “good for you”. But I would strongly advise you to get vitamin pills into your body, instead of bullets. 😉
There is no epidemic of gun violence.
The sources for my chart above are: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The U.S. Congressional Research Service.
So what is to credit for the sharp drop in crime? Some of it can surely be linked in part to increased gun ownership. In addition, smart and effective policing has without a doubt contributed to the lower crime rates. Also, increased penalties for crimes, which put dangerous people behind bars, have helped as well. Likewise, the increased number of police alone is helping. In addition, CompStat, where law enforcement officials have used targeted data to combat lawless behavior, has also played a role in helping to decrease crime.
There is no one factor to which the drop in violent crime can be attributed. But the point remains: violent crime has dropped and we are not in the middle of some mythical “gun violence epidemic” as Crooked Hillary and other Democrats of her ilk, including you, claim.
“The sources for my chart above are: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The U.S. Congressional Research Service.”
NO IT IS NOT!
But if you think that you have a LINK to the web page on the CDC website where this chart supposedly originated, I’d be happy to confirm it. (Even though there is no CDC logo on your chart at all)
You poor brain-washed thing. Can’t even handle the FACTS.
The “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993. Following the exponential growth in the number of guns, that rate fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000.
In other words, as the number of firearms almost doubled over a nearly 20-year period, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was more than halved.
Additionally, the overall murder rate dropped from 9.0 per 100,000 in 1994 to 4.7 in 2011. The overall number of estimated murder victims fell from 23,326 in 1994 to 14,612 in 2011. For estimated firearms-related murder victims, those numbers are 16,333 in 1994 and 9,903 in 2011.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
In all fairness, your are still NOT showing any links to CDC.
The link you are repeatedly showing is to a NGO (non-governmental organisation), which may have some axe to grind.
I’m not questioning your source, but he called you and you still haven’t responded.
There is no epidemic of gun violence.
The link I provided is a report from the The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as Congress’s think tank, a public policy research arm of the United States Congress.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
Give it up. Predrag doesn’t care about the facts and is too f@uckin’ lazy to do cursory research.
Again, I am not questioning your source, but you did mention CDC, and never shared the link to CDC; instead, you linked to the FAS site.
How many times do I have to post this for you to understand why you are asked to post a link to CDC?
BTW the Congressional Research Service is a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress. It is a part of the government. http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/
“You poor brain-washed thing.”
Yes, I have been “brain washed” by reality and logic.
You should try that type of brainwashing yourself some day. It will clean all of the nonsense and irrationality out of you. 😉
There seems to be a decline in the quality of the readers of this web-site. Saying the sources are from CDCP (or wherever) simply indicates where the data are from and not (necessarily) the chart itself. If you spend about 15 seconds searching, you will find that the chart is due to Prof M. Perry (econ and finance, U Mich) and the ref is below. Personally, I think this argument about guns is mute because of the 2nd amendment (and I think this no gun emoji is stupid). However, if you want to hammer on this guy then I suggest you read about the Dickey Admentment. It is an example of how the right (conservative types) try to stop discussion on gun deaths by fiat (just like the left types do with global warming).
https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
Moot, not mute!
thanks – I missed that
How do I know this is bullshit?
Because thanks to NRA lobbying the CDC has been forbidden (yes FORBIDDEN) from gathering data on gun deaths/homicides.
My source: Facts and my aunt who works for the CDC as a high level research associate.
Forgot to add, since the early 80’s.
Japan and Europe doesn’t for him. Just a Trumpet.
If you really cared about stopping gun violence, you’d point out where most gun violence occurs, among blacks with illegal weapons. Why do you want to take guns away from law-abiding whites and blacks? Why do you want law-abiding blacks to be victimized by thugs in their neighborhoods?
Sensible people can clearly see the insanity of your chart.
What it clearly is trying to convince the feeble minded of, is that the number of guns owned is INVERSELY related to the number of gun deaths.
It shows that over the 20 years from 1993 to 2013, gun homicides per 100K people in the USA were cut in half, while gun ownership per 100K people in the USA increased about 50% over the same 20 year period. (It increased to 1.45 guns per person in the USA… Which means that for the approximately 300 Million men, women, and children in the USA, there are almost 450 Million guns owned!!!)
So following this progression, in the next 20 years (by 2033) there will be over 2 guns per person on average, but gun deaths will be down to ZERO.
If you believe that chart, I have a very nice bridge to sell to you.
What is truly “weird” is that in countries that have almost ZERO gun ownership per 100K people (like Japan), the number of gun deaths per 100K people SHOULD be close to 100K deaths… According to this chart, the number of deaths per 100K is the CONVERSE of the number of guns owned per person.
Yet, very “weirdly” in countries that have almost ZERO gun ownership per 100K people, the gun deaths is ALSO close to ZERO.
Go figure. 😉
Who would have thought that LOGIC would enter the picture???
Your data omits an important point. The guns-per-person curve averages total number of guns in America across the entire American population, omitting the actual gun ownership numbers. While some 20 years ago, over 40% Americans owned guns, that number is actually lower today and is around 30%. Your chart goes up to about 2014. Today, the data indicates that an average American gun owner is a white man, and he owns about 8 firearms.
The other data that chart actually omits is gun deaths other than homicide (i.e. suicide, accidental deaths, etc). Those numbers have been on the rise, since the mid-2000s and they comprise a significant portion of the total number of gun deaths in America.
So, as the gun homicides decline (which is a testament to the effectiveness of various social programmes, efficient policing and judicial system), the total number of gun deaths has actually remained the same throughout the 2000s (the decline in homicides was made-up for by increase in suicides and accidents), and that is despite the fact that the number of gun owners in America has dropped.
In other words, even though fewer Americans own guns (although each of them owns many more than before), same number of people get killed by those guns every year. So, if we were to plot a chart of gun deaths per gun owner in America, we would have a growth curve.
Gotta say it…the level of debate about gun control, among Americans, pro or anti, is quite pathetic.
The truth is that the vast majority of US citizens do not own a gun, have no interest in owning a gun and are in favour of a wide range of gun control measures.
Democracy anyone?
That the US allows a minority of the population and its associated institutions like the NRA, to dictate how the majority live their lives, is staggeringly mad. That the right to kill and be killed by guns is enshrined in the constitution, is a gross misrepresentation or deliberate lie whose only purpose is obfuscation of the rights of the individual. That the safety of the majority depends on the rights of the minority to carry guns, is plainly moronic.
As I’ve stated several times…if you gun freaks could guarantee that you are able to control the assholes who kill innocents, that every owner only used guns appropriately, that you respect the rights of the majority to live in safe, gun free areas and that your choice to live a life of killing and fear does not remove the rights of the majority who think differently, then I and many others would applaud your right to be killed by guns.
But you can guarantee none of those things. You just pass the responsibility down the line like the cowardly nimby(s) you are, hiding behind twisted logic and a gross disrespect of other folks wishes.
Why oh why, is sheer common sense always thrown to the dogs when the subject of public safety arises?
And before I get the libtard replies, I shoot clays regularly, UK, ISO and ASA skeet at my local US Airforce base where strict regulation, registration of firearms and a host of rules are in place, to control unauthorized and inappropriate gun use. Nobody ever complains there because everyone realizes that regulation is the only way to ensure safety and that unintended consequences never become an issue.
Getting quite sick of non-Americans thinking they know better than Americans about American liberty, freedom, and Constitution. Cheerio!
So, Fwhatever, you found a legitimate (although incredibly minuscule) gripe about Apple replacing an emoji and, naturally, it is part of some terrible slippery slope down a rabbit hole that you despise in its totality. Well, your rabbit hole sucks, too. I don’t want either of those far left/far right rabbit holes. You are a nut, Lucas Tamborelli is a nut, and so are your counterparts on the opposite end of the spectrum.
That is not to say that everything about you and your believe system is despicable, and therein lies the difference between you and me. I can appreciate that you sometimes have valid ideas and valid points, and I can recognize the same from the opposite end of the spectrum. You can only see left and right, rendering yourself blind to the straight and moderate path ahead of you. The more that you steer towards the right curb, the more that others will steer to the left to balance the extremes.
This is a freaking emoji. Quit trying to make a political and social referendum out of a tiny graphic and start applying yourself to real world issues. For instance, you have expressed strong resistance to gun control laws in the past. How do you propose to improve the gun violence situation in the U.S.? If this experiment with concealed and open carry firearms fails to have a positive effect (or has a negative effect), will you be willing to try something else? Or does a skewed modern day emulation of the Old West just appeal to the manly cowboy in you?
You represent the death of intellect.
Yep and yep.
get the F$#@! over it LUCAS…
Get over what? Apple’s blatant inconsistency and delusional Liberal hypocrisy?
PC liberalism, turned back on them. See how they don’t like it?
When they attack the right, it’s perfectly fine. When their own crap is turned on them… They don’t like it at all.
Come and take my titanium spork Apple!!!! I dare ya.
Hey if an apple product is used in a crime, phishing let’s say, should we ban apples products next?
Dear Backlash, of course many tools can be used for murder.
Guns for example are for shooting ranges and killing people.
Bombs are for destroying people and property.
Swords are today mostly for decoration and show. I’m sure in the USA(and in Canada) there are occasionally sword murders, but I couldn’t find any stats on that.
Chain saws are for cutting wood, but like most tools they can be used for killing.
Most knives bought and used are for cutting food, but of course there are hunting knives and poseur knives and people who will grab a steak knife to kill people.
So Mr(or MS)Backlash, not everything is the same.
Peace and love from Canada, Sherif Laoun
The hypocrisy soared over you head…
No, it didn’t. Sherif Laoun’s post went right over yours, though.
Apple is quite consistent. What they are suggesting be removed from the Unicode standard set, is an image of a weapon the primary purpose of which is to kill people, and nothing else.
None of the other images represent thing the primary purpose of which is to kill. While almost anything can be used to kill a person if one has a bit of ingenuity, only a weapon is actually designed with such intent. Other things are not.
Are you getting it now?
Except for the sword. Though the sword had grown from the knife (as the idea of the gun was grown from the ancient tube launcher/mortar) it was a specialized weapon specifically made for killing people. You did not eat with it, you did not hunt with it, and though you might be able to chop wood with it, the sword is a very poor substitute for an axe. True, these days, a sword is hung as decor, but only because some were considered a work of art, just like some firearms are considered a work of art and are displayed as such. Yet, the greatest of these works of art are still functional for their primary purpose – killing people. Thus I believe the pistol symbol should be returned in its ‘artful’ form, exactly as the sword has been kept as an ‘artful’ representation. My 2 cents.
Well, that gun icon was clearly not an ancient musket or some similar archaic firearm now considered a work of art. Perhaps they could put in an image of an 18-century pistol…
Well clearly the answer is to provide free knives to every civilian to protect themselves by some peoples logic. Yes logic gets a little grey in such matters so pretty pathetic for Lucas (who he?) to claim he has the keys to Delphi on such matters.
Tim Cook’s Apple is a disappointment.
If Steve Jobs were here and wasn’t filling your bill you’d say “Steve Jobs Apple is a disappointment.” And even back then there were those who said THAT. There are precious few perfectly run high profile companies to everyone’s satisfaction. Let’s hope the takeaway is they learn from it and other issues.
I just want to know what emotion a green squirt gun represents.
Ennui?
The reason you NRA nuts are talking about this has nothing to do with knives and everything to do with what you perceive as “erosion of you gun rights.” The fact of the matter is that knives have never been on the same playing field as guns in terms of accidental loss of life. Every year children lose this lives to family guns.
Knives are designed for slicing and hammers for bludgeoning, but people kill with those all the time. Cars are designed as conveyances but as many or more people die by car crash annually than by firearms. Should we also talk about banning knives, hammers, and cars?
According to the FBI Supplementary Homicide Report for 2014, the number of homicides due to knives was less than a quarter the number of homicides due to guns. The number of homicides by guns was more than FIFTEEN TIMES greater than blunt objects.
Not to mention we have regulations on cars that restrict where they can be used andrequire certain safety features, and we devote a lot of manpower and money into monitoring roadways and enforcing traffic laws in attempts to minimize loss of life on the road. So if anything, using automobiles as an example is counterproductive to the typical “throw the floodgates open” stance that is seemingly expressed by most people in favor of broad interpretations of the Second Amendment. As a gun owner myself, I think you (the collective you, not you individually) are being a abso-freaking-lutely ridiculous.
And a company choosing which stupid cartoon glyphs to use in their own operating system is NOT something over which to get your panties in a wad.
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 don’t 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 some other lowlife might harm someone. You are missing an important point. If the abuser is so intent on harming someone, what is preventing him from taking a baseball bat to their head, or shooting them with a crossbow, or an arrow, or hitting them with an axe or with a hammer, or strangling them, or running them down with a car, or poisoning them, or pushing them down a set of stairs or a million other scenarios? –Nothing. So all we get is an unwanted registry and people are still unsafe.
Doesn’t sound like much of a solution to me, it sounds more like someone wants to scapegoat guns when the problem is with the person wielding that gun or other weapon.
You seem to be copy-pasting the same text from thread to thread (which now leads me to doubt the authorship of it), so I’ll post my own response to yours from before.
While your argument may be valid in some lofty academic context, in practice it is difficult to accept 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.
The Second Amendment applies to government use, not private companies.
Even though I can agree this emoji thing is stupid, the Consititution doesn’t apply to Aplenin terms of gun rights (or gun-related issues).
Cars are for transport.
Guns are for killing. That’s the difference.
Don’t give me the excuse that guns are for target practice. That would be tantamount to using cars for driving tests only without and intent to drive them on the road. Of course guns were designed to be tools for killing.
I can use a pencil to kill someone, but that’s not its purpose. I can use water to kill someone, but that’s not it’s purpose. I can use a belt to kill someone, but that’s not it’s purpose.
Yeah so? In the end, you’re still dead regardless of device used.
Let’s ban everything so nobody gets killed.
No. Let’s not. I need a pencil to write. You need a car to go to work. Nobody needs a gun to do anything other than kill a person. The only “good guy with a gun” that can stop a “bad guy with a gun” is a police officer. Any other kind doesn’t have the proper skill and training to properly use that gun and is a greater danger to himself and others around him, than he is a deterrent against bad guys with guns.
This is a very ignorant statement. Please read up on this topic from other perspectives.
Oh, I did, there is quite a lot from all perspectives.
But most important reading is actual gun death data, and data paints a pretty clear picture. A civilian “good guy with a gun” has significantly higher chances of getting killed than stopping a bad guy with a gun.
All of the recent mass shootings in America (plenty to go on there, regrettably) have had a “good guy with a gun” (the Fort Hood massacre was on an army base — plenty of guns everywhere), and the only good the “good guys with a gun” did was to eventually kill the shooter once he was done shooting and out of ammunition (read up on all those cases).
And in one-on-one cases, the chances of you dying from a gun go dramatically up if you also have a gun.
You are incorrect about Fort Hood (your single specific example) and recent mass shootings. You are very misinformed.
“The only “good guy with a gun” that can stop a “bad guy with a gun” is a police officer.”
Unless the officer turns out to be the bad guy, in which case we have no protection from the police (gov’t, military, etc) because you would abrogate the individual constitutional right(as declared by the US Supreme Court) to keep and bear arms. FYI: I respect and trust MOST police and military personnel, but I also know that there are a few bad apples (pun intended) in any organization/group/religion/public at large that give the rest a bad name, thus I treat all with a weapon with an ounce of distrust until I know that person is not a threat.
Knifes are already banned in the UK. Carrying a knife without good reason is a criminal offence with a maximum punishment of four years in prison and/or a fine of £5,000.
Basically, any knife with a non-folding blade of more than 3″ may not be carried in public except under special circumstances, such as cooks carrying their work tools, somebody buying kitchen knifes and taking them home, or somebody transporting theatrical props.
There are other legitimate exceptions and the courts will make decisions based on individual circumstances. Using any sort of knife ( even a legally allowed box cutter or Swiss Army knife ) in a threatening manner is automatically an offence, with the same penalty.
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
The attacker in London was somebody with mental health issues, who used a kitchen knife to attack random people. The police are still investigating, but think that the attack was not related to terrorism. Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said “we have found no evidence of radicalization or anything that would suggest the man in our custody was in any way motivated by terrorism.”
I’m not clear how these laws played any part in this attack.
The posting was a reply to the question raised about banning knives.
Clearly the laws didn’t prevent this attack, just as laws intended to stop motorists speeding do not stop everybody from speeding or laws against stealing do not prevent all thefts, but knife attacks of this type are now so rare in the UK that when one happens, it becomes a major news item.
I suspect that one of the other reasons why it attracted so much publicity was that some reports assumed it was Islamic terrorism, however while the investigating police obviously did initially consider that possibility, having investigated the attacker’s background they do not now believe it was terrorism.
The only nuts here r the pathetic anti-gunners.
Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans stop 1 to 2.5 million violent crimes every year.
How stupid do u be to be to not comprehend this?
FBI reports show more people r killed with hands and feet than rifles.
More kids drown than r killed with guns
More people r kill falling down than with guns
Try some research before u open your stupid pie hole.
Have a first-grader explain to you what all means
2.5 million violent crimes per years stopped by legal gun owners??? Where did you get that number? Because the actual, real data is well below 1,000 per year. The number you cite is either completely made up, or is the result of an NRA “survey” of several hundred NRA members, who were asked if they have prevented an intruder or a robber with their gun in the prior year. The survey has long been debunked as meaningless, because the sample was ridiculously low, it was completely inaccurate (polling ONLY NRA members), and it didn’t corroborate responses with police reports or ANY other source. Not to mention that the survey question was phrased in a way to encourage members to ’embellish’ (make up) responses. Again, the actual data, supported by real research, claims that the actual number of home invasion cases where homeowners successfully used their guns (whether just brandishing or discharging the weapon) is lower than 1,000.
The total number of people killed by lightning strikes, strangulation, knives, slips, trips, falls, or any other way, is really completely irrelevant to the discussion here.
America has by far the highest rate of firearms deaths in the developed world. Heck, even Mexico (drug cartel-run lawlessness paradise) has a lower rate of firearms deaths. So, how does a country with a high-functioning, efficient and consistent law enforcement and judicial system have such high rate of deaths from firearms? Because it refuses to regulate them.
I’ll give you some info based on extensive research and statistical data that has been reviewed by many, including the NRA (and never disputed). In America, simple gun ownership increases likelihood of death from firearm three-fold. Likelihood of domestic violence significantly increases if there is a gun at home. Likelihood of getting killed during a home invasion is significantly higher if homeowner has a gun (which is logical; if intruder sees the homeowner with a gun, he’ll shoot first; if not, the homeowner will simply comply and the intruder will almost never fire his weapon, and no lives will be lost). The rate of suicide is significantly higher when a gun is available. This is also logical; suicidal thoughts are often brief and transient. If a gun is handy, the person can quickly act and the result is irreversible. Otherwise, it takes an effort to devise a way to kill oneself (walk into traffic, jump from the top of the building, poison oneself, etc), and none of those options guarantee instant, painless and 100% effective outcome. And the main reason for Americans buying guns (for self-defense) simply doesn’t hold water: you are much more likely to get killed in an airplane crash than to get into a situation where you may need to defend your life with a gun. And in such a situation, you are still much more likely to be killed if you do have a gun, then if you don’t.
You will need a comprehension a bit higher than a first-grader to understand all this, but I’m sure you can handle it. If not, I can create some infographic illustrating all this…
Thanks for the stupidity. Please don’t vote nor breed. You have already done too much harm to society
What I have you was from actual data. You may love guns or hate them but that data is factual.
And what you said makes absolutely no sense.
What a great response, thank you Predrag.
More children die in Auto accidents than accidental shootings, unless you are talking about criminal gang members offing themselves. Oh and really moronic, stupid people like that so called mother who used her child (some mother) to shield herself from cops while pointing a shotgun at the cops and posting on facebook.
What does your statement prove? More people own cars, and more time is spent in cars.
Once I was scratched, and then bitten (!) by a violent kitten.
When I see the kitty emoji, it triggers a feeling of panic and despair.
I request that Apple either remove the kitty emoji, or at the very least, place a TRIGGER WARNING LABEL ON THE IPHONE BOX.
Feline microagressions have NO PLACE in my SAFE SPACE.
🐱🐈
So according to Apple, I may or may not have just threatened you…
I’ll wait for Tim to tell me if I did.
Shame on you! I am terrified now! I’m absolutely on the verge of a complete mental breakdown.
I’m going to protest you on my campus quad and you’d better not take any pictures of it!
😭😭😭
Once I scratched my arm with my fingernails. Will they remove the hand emoji?
Once I got a sunburn.
Once I tripped over a tree.
My mind hurt when I read your post.
Macdailynews should remove it.
Silly micro agressions have NO PLACE in my SAFE SPACE.
I totally agree with the article. As a loyal Apple follower, owners of countless Apple products and stock holder I’m tired of Tim Cook using Apple to forward his personal crusade and politics (most of which I disagree with). Like Jobs did before him, he should keep his personal views personal and leave Apple out of it. Nevertheless, get ready for the knife to be replaced with a plastic one. Geez!!!
What if someone gets killed with a plastic fork/spork?
http://www.answers.com/mobile/Q/How_many_people_have_been_killed_with_a_plastic_knife
Already been done.
The question is just as relevant as asking “How many steaks have you eaten using your gun?”
Knives and forks are utensils we (humans) use to eat our food. That is their primary purpose. While you can kill someone using pretty much anything, the main purpose of all those things is always something else, and usually it is something utilitarian or good. There is only one thing the main purpose of which is to kill a person and nothing else: a firearm.
The beta is already out. You already have your answer. It’s no. Talk about over reacting.
As hard as I’m rolling my eyes at this whole stupid uproar over a stupid cartoon glyph, I may literally die.
At which point, I will personally haunt Tim Cook if he doesn’t remove the eye-roll emoji. Because clearly, what stupid cartoons glyphs a company chooses to bake into their platforms’ operating systems is OH SO IMPORTANT as to let it ruin my day/afterlife.
“I wonder if Tim Cook’s personal security team are armed with green plastic squirt guns?”
Bwahahahaha!
What a moronic conservatard comment…
Strong comeback, snowflake.
On the same intellectual level as your riposte, Predrag . . . . “Right back atcha!” with minor insertion of “libtard.”
I was so desperately trying to even out the field; it has been months since I had seen anyone using any derogatory definition of a conservative on this board, while the ‘libtard’ and derivatives thereof are frequent and plentiful.
It seems that the current American election is making many devoted republicans extremely nervous; not because their candidate may well lose, but because even if he wins, he doesn’t really represent anything a real true American conservative stands for (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-trade agrement, in favour of individual mandate health care…).
It will all be sorted out in four years, where Americans (both conservative and liberal) will get a second chance to nominate people who are actually competent to lead the country. Until then, we’ll just have to ignore those emotional political outbursts from those who are struggling to reconcile their party, believes and values, with their candidate.
I don’t know who Lucas is, what he does and what are his credentials, but I must say, this article is quite simplistic and disingenuous.
If we put aside, for the moment, the purpose and function of emoji in a computing device, and turn the discussion into the direction that Lucas is turning it, there is a rather big difference between a gun and a knife (or a fork, car, baseball bat, power socket, lightning bolt, hammer, screwdriver, chainsaw, ice pick, airplane, and all other things that could potentially kill a person or be used to kill a person): you can’t use gun to chop onions, or to open a bottle of wine, or to mow a lawn, or to drive your child to soccer practice.
There is only one intended use for a gun: to kill another person. All other uses (target practice, for example) are ancillary to its primary use, which is killing a person.
None of those other objects are designed with that primary purpose, with the possible exception of the sword, although I am not sure sword violence is a dire problem in America (or any other country in 21st century), or that we need to find ways to reduce the number of sword deaths in the world (such as by removing sword emoji).
It is impossibly difficult to use an image of a gun in any context other than killing. When a firearm is mentioned, in writing or visually, it is inextricably tied to killing (a person or, to a lesser degree a wild animal). I can’t say I have every seen anyone using a gun to drive a nail, or tighten a screw (although I could plausibly accept the possibility of it being used in such a way). If there is even the slightest chance that unavailability of a realistic image of a gun in emoji may even just slightly reduce the possibility of inciting violence, then I can’t possibly see how is this a bad thing.
Let us imagine a scenario in which some radical islamist somewhere in Syria/Iraq/Lebanon broadcasts a text to his semi-literate followers; instead of typing text in Arabic (and hoping everyone can acutally read), all he has to do is send an emoji of a gun pointing to an emoji of a Christian cross. Multiply into several icons of a gun, and the message (Kill, kill, kill infidels!) is clear and strong. A squirt gun instead of a regular one clearly doesn’t have the same persuasive powers.
Incidentally, how many here have EVER used that gun emoji?
“There is only one intended use for a gun: to kill another person. All other uses (target practice, for example) are ancillary to its primary use, which is killing a person.”
Wrong.
If the only purpose of a gun is to kill, then the vast majority of the approximately 350 million guns present in the U.S. must be design failures, because the vast majority will never kill anyone or anything.
Imagine if you had another product — say, a washing machine — that failed in 99.99% of the time in its intended function. You would absolutely say that the product was a failure. But since manufacturers still produce and sell guns, and there’s plenty of people who want to buy them, it follows that those guns must be being used for purposes other than killing.
That is profoundly disingenuous. The argument completely fails.
The only way a gun would be a design failure is if its user were to try to use it and it wouldn’t work. Most people in America buy guns with the similar thinking as why they buy flashlights, or first aid kits — with the hope that they don’t have to ever use them. Your flashlight sits in a drawer for months (years) until there is a power outage (last time I used mine was 12 years ago, during Eastern US massive power outage). When you buy a car, or a washer, you don’t keep it in your garage (or bathroom) for months (years); you use it for its intended purpose (driving around, or washing laundry).
So, let us try and be honest this time: Americans buy guns largely for the purpose to kill. They buy them with the hope they’ll never have to actually use them for their intended purpose; they hope that they’ll actually never have to use them at all, but if they do, they hope that by merely having them, holding them, threatening with them, they can fend of intruders from their home.
Regrettably, statistical data says that they are profoundly misguided. In cases of home invasion, home owners are significantly more likely to get killed by a gun (frequently, their own) if there is a gun in the household. This makes perfect sense: if intruder sees a homeowner with a gun, he’ll fire first; if the homeowner has no gun, he will comply and intruder will (almost) never use his firearm, and lives will be saved.
So, bottom line, vast majority of those 350 million guns in America are largely collecting dust (or occasionally being cleaned or fired at a firing range, as practice for real killing), but those that are actually used aren’t used for hammering nails; they are used for killing others.
Only 2 of my *many* firearms would be considered to be used to “kill” a person.
Those are the two I carry, daily.
The rest are for shooting metal targets at long ranges.
Or paper at closer distances.
The intent I had when buying them is range time. That’s it.
Others I have are for pretty much just for the collection aspect.
And there you have it! You have not one, but TWO guns that you intend to use to kill a person (if the situation calls for it). And the others to practice the skill of killing people (by shooting metal targets).
Thank you very much for affirming my post.
Well, I do have two hands.
My question is: when you go out your door every day, who have you decided you might need to kill that day? I’m an American and I don’t feel that threat to my being. As a matter of fact, the only time I feel uncomfortable for my safety is when I encounter some one carrying a gun in public, because I can’t divine who they are or what their issues are. And, to tell the truth, it wouldn’t make me feel any better to be carrying too, because I haven’t made up my mind that I need to kill anyone today.
Your mental issues are showing.
The people carrying a firearm openly in public are not people to be afraid of. As long as they are being lawful, you have nothing to worry about. Except in your mind…
I own more knives than guns, I’ve been trained to kill with a knife… As well as a firearm.
I carry for protection, mine and others.
And yes I’ve had to use it for defense. (Not fired, but drawn)
Hell 8 blocks from where I worked a guy decapitated someone with an axe…
You mean the issues where I haven’t decided who I need to kill anyone today? Im good with those.
And you are exactly the guy I don’t want to be around in public. You are too easily confused about what needs to happen next. Some examples: There was the permitted carry guy in Oregon who decided to start shooting when he witnessed a gas theft at a convenience store, or the one in Florida that felt someone playing music too loud for his tastes deserved a death sentence.
I figure a guy with a gun on the streets of America is looking for trouble and disappointed it hasn’t happened yet. I don’t want to be around when your dreams come true.
Neither case would be justified, both in the wrong.
How about the Oregon mall shooter a few years back that took his own life after an armed citizen drew his glock but didn’t fire at his due to the people behind the shooter…
Watch the video of it if you have the balls.
The media didn’t like the sheriff coming out with that video and showing the guy didn’t kill himself just cause he was done killing others. He killed himself cause someone stood up to him.
You’ll note the media talks about other shootings… But only briefly (if at all) mentions that shooting.
Statistically, people carrying a firearm openly in public are PRECISELY the people to be afraid of. When a person carries a firearm, the chances of that person, as well as all those around him getting shot and killed by gun go up five-fold. This is statistical data from various studies, and it makes sense. Even if that person with the gun is the most mentally stable, reasonable and rational person, it is all to easy for anyone to approach him and simply steal that firearm. Among all the gun owners of America, a very small percentage have specialised training and skills in weaponry and combat. The rest stand little chance against a criminal, who will effortlessly steal their gun and shoot them with it. Data (as well as common sense) clearly supports this scenario, as so many gun owners end up getting killed by their own guns.
There is one known case where a criminal took a firearm from the OC person and killed him with his own gun, the guy was in his 70’s.
I’ll give you $100 if you can take a pistol from a OC gun owner. It isnt as easy as you think, and most modern holsters have at least one safety retention that makes the firearm almost impossible to take from the holster unless you are right up in the OC’s ass.
Do not believe what you see in the stupid Hollywood movies… The pistols are canter forward, you have to reach past the wearer to remove it. And extremely easy to thwart and punish someone who tries.. Someone reaches behind you for your pistol:
A: you failed to be aware of your surroundings…
B: drop your arm over the dipshits arm and lock it to your body, turn in the same direction your pistol is on. Right for right handers. The wrist can’t bend that way. If you can grab and hold that wrist… Spin fast and take them to the ground. You should be on top with their arm bent, crying for mommy (or the government) to save them. Place knee on kidney and apply as much force as needed.
I went through a LEO course, let me tell you something…. Slowly doing that can hurt like Hell. Doing it full speed can do insane damage. Dumbass that is going for the pistol doesn’t think you can defend… They are putting themselves in a no win situation.
But back to point A, as with driving a vehicle. LEAVE YOURSELF AN OUT! Always be aware of people around you, don’t be stupid and let someone get that close to you.
Be safe, be polite, but plan ahead.
Side note, F U MDN. Can’t go to your website due to Adblock, your mobile POS app displays ads that keep opening the App Store with various apps………. The REASON I run Adblock on your site.
That’s when I can actually type for more than 5 seconds before the stupid page refreshes.
If every single American legal gun owner had the knowledge and the training that you have, the gun death numbers would likely be lower. People would actually know when it is better NOT to show that they have a gun, rather than brandishing it and getting shot by a freaked-out assailant.
Unfortunately, too many legal gun owners still get killed by their own guns. Hell, even professionals (police officers) get shots by guns stolen from them during the confrontation with the assailant(s).
Guns are simply dangerous in the hands of ordinary people. They increase the likelihood of actually getting shot by five-fold. There are simply too few scenarios that make gun ownership into a positive thing.
I have never known a gun store/range/etc that does NOT tell the people to get training.
Is there any state that does not require a firearm safety class to get a hunting license? I’d say the majority of firearm owners have rifles for hunting of some sort.
To carry a pistol in most states you are required to have some training as well. And even those that do not, they still encourage it when you get the permit.
Honestly the percent of those that don’t have any training are low, illegal firearm owners…. Tend to have zero training.. And are the ones you see in the news.
Again, point out the times a firearm was taken from an owner out of a holster and used to kill the owner.
Police that get shot with a service weapon tend to be shot during a struggle where the firearm was already pulled out. (Or in the process of being pulled when attacked)
And btw, the states that don’t have any training.. Are being pressured by everyone to enact training.
Side note, states with laws like constitutional carry… Have less gun violence than states with more restrictive laws. (Illinois/Michigan/NY etc)
Also note that most shootings happen in high population liberal cities… You don’t hear of a mass shooting in say Alaska.. Since it’s rare to see someone NOT carrying a firearm.
Gun free zones… End up being the targets for criminals desiring to kill others. No resistance.
“Superior being,” is implying that all those fire extinguishers I see attached to walls are failures. Just because you never use a tool, doesn’t mean that isn’t its purpose.
I used the rifle and handgun emoji in my calendars to remind me of target practice and hunting dates. Now I cannot because Apple is full to the brim with hopelessly confused PC fools like you.
Molon Labe.
Aincient Greek? Impressive!
You can still use the squirt gun.
It is quite easy to imagine how gun icon can be efficiently used to incite violence (and not just in Syria, as in my example above), and how without such icon, there is a possibility that the message would be less effective.
Do you truly believe that your ability to insert a firearm emoji into a calendar as a reminder is worth the possible lives that could be lost because someone on the receiving end of a gun emoji-loaded message went and killed someone?
I have noticed that Americans generally tend to be much more selfish than most other developed nations. This has worked very well for them with respect to the economy (relying on one’s own ability, entreprise and ingenuity), but on the social level, they don’t seem to care much for a greater good of the world. From the issues related to pollution (“I will drive my gas-guzzling SUV until you pry it form my cold dead hands”, to paraphrase F16T18 here), to recycling (barely 10% of earth-polluting trash is actually recycled, significantly less than any other developed nation), to many other issues. The fight over the right to use a realistic gun emoji (regardless of its possibility to incite gun violence) shouldn’t be a surprise.
You probably also blamed Benghazi on a video. I hope you are comment spamming from your gun-free zone safe space.
What I also find curious is another thing; while Aple (Tim Cook’s Apple, as most commenters here seem to be derisively calling it) may have suggested this emoji change, the Unicode standards body has apparently accepted these suggestions and are implementing it across the board. In other words, by the time iOS 10 comes out, Anrdoid N, Windows 10 and all other Unicode-compliant OSes will have the squirt gun emoji, because people other than Apple also agree that the real gun emoji has a potential of causing real, actual death, without bringing any actual valuable conversational tool that is not related to killing humans.
What will replace the box truck emoji?
Why would they replace the box truck emoji?
Trucks are used to deliver food to refugees (among other things, such as delivering your UPS packages, which may include guns).
Finally, someone has a sane response to this emoji madness.
All this fuss over a stupid emoji?
How long will MDN be linking to that “libtard” Joy of Tech cartoon anyhow? Mixed messages, MDN, mixed messages!
Apple has waded into a PC quagmire. How this company has changed, amazing….
FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS…jeez
” I wonder if Tim Cook’s personal security team are armed with green plastic squirt guns?”
That’s just fucking stupid. I love how the fucking anti-“politcal correctness” brigade whines like babies about things that do not negatively affect their life. Then roll out some ridiculous straw man argument to whine about it more.
OMG! They took away the gun emoji – next, it’s your guns!!!! Fucking clowns.
I’ve been reading MDN for over 10 years. The last 6-12 months I’ve noticed a change in the types of stories covered and the tone/MDN Take on them and have to say it’s a bit self-serving and over the top. This article is the last straw. I’m deleting the app and my bookmark. Keep your rants to your friends or at least change the name to MacDailyOpinions instead. If I wanted to be loaded up with heavy culturally/politically charged themes I’d just watch Fox News.
You quote Steve Jobs as intentionally staying out of politics under the advice of a friend. Maybe you should take the same advice.
Or move on to the next article.
This article is a prime example of how the NERA (National Emoji Rifle Association) overreacts anytime you try to take away their pixel guns.
Everyone run and hide, the Minecraft sky is falling! 🌩
🔪💥 <-Take that Apple!
🍴💥 <-Take that Apple!
Knife works better.
Hey Apple! I want an atomic explosion emoji! Surely there's nothing wrong with that? . . . Never mind. 🙁
Trump asked 3 times in an hour security briefing why we can’t just use nuclear weapons
*tweak*
Wow, this guy is sour.
If Apple’s ‘slippery slope’ is emojis, then we are probably pretty lucky.
To MDN: You advised Tim Cook and Apple to stay out of politics. That advice applies to you as well. Given your attitude gun rights, I’m installing ad blockers on all my devices. You can boycott Apple products all you want. I wonder how long you will last if your ad revenues dry up.
Or move on to the next article.