Quinn: Apple got it wrong in changing the gun emoji

“I was perplexed by Apple’s decision to replace the revolver emoji for a lime green water pistol in its upcoming software release,” Michelle Quinn writes for The Mercury News. “The move, which the company hasn’t explained but is expected to take effect in September, has some of that old Apple whimsy to it. Disarm the guns of the world by replacing them with squirt guns.”

“I get it. Even on the tiny stage of the iPhone’s text messaging space, Apple is sending a message: It doesn’t like guns and wants to reduce our insensitivity to gun violence,” Quinn writes. “That’s a laudable goal, but it’s sadly laughable. And a tad dangerous.”

“I can’t believe I’m going to defend the right of iPhone users to have a gun emoji, but tech companies are communication firms now. They give us the tools to talk to each other. To remove an image like the revolver emoji is to remove an idea,” Quinn writes. “Apple is in the business of giving customers more tools for communicating, not taking them away.”

“To take the squirt gun change even further, why not remove the word ‘gun’ and all its synonyms? Or the word ‘bang?” Quinn writes. “And what about the iPhone’s bomb and knife emojis? They seem safe, for now.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Apple should be in the business of giving customers more tools for communicating, not taking them away as they’re attempting to do now.

It’s not hammers that pose a threat to nails, it’s some of the people wielding some of the hammers. Barring hammers from conversation won’t save a single nail. By the way, hammers can also be used to save nails as they have claws for extraction. It actually depends upon the intent of the person holding the hammer.

Apple, of all places, should understand clearly that problems don’t get solved until you can identify the actual problem and then address it. The rest is just infantile obfuscation.

Blaming the tool when the issues are with certain tool-holders (mental illness, religious extremism, lack of respect for life, poverty, etc.) is just silliness. If someone really wants to do away with a nail, you don’t even need a hammer, any old rock will do.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting your eyes is a three-year-old’s response to a scary situation. Sticking your fingers in someone else’s ears while blindfolding them is the response of a totalitarian dictator.

With this silly squirt gun move, Apple Inc. looks like it’s run by a bunch of dictatorial fools tilting at windmills.

Get out of gun control, Apple – August 16, 2016
Apple and the (squirt) gun emoji – August 4, 2016
In wake of London stabbing rampage, will Apple replace their knife emoji with a plastic spork? – August 4, 2016
Open Thread: Should Apple code their OSes to block video games that glorify guns and murder? – August 3, 2016
Apple jumps the shark by removing the handgun emoji; Gun owners might want to reconsider buying Apple’s products – 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 quashes rifle Emoji – June 20, 2016


    1. Riiiiiight. Apple should just change their freaking logo to that silly green gun emoji.

      At this point in time, Apple seems to be most innovative when finding new knee-jerk ways to make themselves look sillier than a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. Om Malik politely calls it lack of focus.

      “Lack of focus” is probably the best description of what many perceive to be wrong with Apple in general. Indeed, it is becoming more and more difficult to defend Tim Cook’s seeming “lack of focus.”

      While universally he is seen as a smart and genuinely nice person, his interests seem more attuned to being a social justice warrior, saving the world form dangerous emojis, and apps with Confederate flags, than steering the good ship Apple.

      From the feminization of the product line (pink tech?), to the gradual morph of the company from a technology leader to a bling fashion and style brand, to the dearth of product updates and all but lack of interest in Macs, Apple is giving off more warning signs than a drug addict with unlimited cash.

      On most political issues, MDN readers seem pretty much split down the middle. With this issue, at least according to the MDN poll, over 60% of the readers think Apple is wrong here. That leaves 33 percent who agree with Apple. That means Apple is acting like a bunch of pompous asses to pander to 33 percent of the people.

      It seems as thought there is this thread running through Apple’s distractions with the entertainment industry. Someone wants to be invited to the right cocktail parties. Someone likes being the darling of the celebrity world, a key player in the Entertainment/Leftist Political complex. (There are many complexes, not just the military/industrial complex.)

      Steve didn’t care if you didn’t like him, he just made you contend with him.

    2. As the old saying goes” Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Look at what happened in jap. Where the guy killed 19 people using a knife. Should Apple remove the knife emoji for a plastic one? Think about that then come back and see if banning knives wil curb knife murders. Gun control “Idiots” are like lemmings following the Pied Piper over the cliff. They don’t think, they just regurgitate what all the other idiots progressives are saying. That alone show how stupid they are. Banning guns will not solve the murder problem. It’s a change of heart that will make a change, period.

      1. Uh, that trope is so flawed on so many levels.

        In any case, the Japanese attack was in a home for the disabled. Killed 19, 25 wounded… all handicapped. Comparing guns to knives is ridiculous. Why not compare them to bombs? Lets see how far you get with that.

        Oh look, bombs don’t kill people, after all.

        Plutonium doesn’t kill people, but we seem to be upset when another country want to get their hands on it… and use it to make explosive objects that fly in the sky.

        1. 🐂💩🐂💩🐂💩!!!

          That trope is REALITY.

          A gun cannot pick itself off a couch, go out in the street and kill at will.

          Obviously you hate guns, judging by your serial posts, and that’s fine.

          Another old saying, “don’t piss down my back and tell me its raining.”🎯🔫

          1. Doesn’t mean it’s not flawed.

            So, how do you feel about plutonium bombs? I mean… bombs don’t kill people… and hey plutonium is just an energy source, right?

            Why do we control alcohol sales at an arbitrary age?

            It doesn’t matter that it takes a human to pull the trigger.

            And if, as you say, it’s people that kill people with guns, then surely controlling access to guns can’t be a bad thing, can it? Maybe, though, I’m wrong. Maybe you have a personal use for a semi-automatic HK-MP5 other than “because it’s my right”.

            Because “it’s my right” is a stupid reason. If a right is wrong, then modulate the right. After all, in some countries, it’s a man’s right to punish his wife.

    3. As I posted during the recent emoji furor, this is a lot of ado about nothing. First of all, this is an emoji, not a referendum on our Constitutional rights of free speech or the right to bear arms. Second, it has *not* actually happened (yet). This is not released software.

      Personally, I believe that Apple missed the boat in this case. I cannot believe that changing the gun emoji will alter one instance of violent behavior. But it is consistent with Apple’s effort to pursue the higher moral ground. And I am amazed at the depth of the outrage over this change to an emoji that did not even exist a short time ago. People need to get a life and figure out what really matters.

      As far as MDN’s take goes, it is a bit ridiculous. The folks at Apple know that only a subset of people with guns shoot other people. So, now that you have helpfully identified the “actual problem,” MDN, it is long past time to “address it.” Please explain why the majority of Americans have long favored updates to gun control laws including comprehensive background checks and universal registration, but the legislation has been blocked at every opportunity by a small, but powerful minority with outsized political influence. There are limits to every freedom. Those limits should be kept to a very minimum, but there are limits to speech, free assembly, etc. Why should the right to bear arms be somehow different that the NRA had to push legislation to prevent even the scientific study of gun violence? The proliferation of guns carried in public, whether concealed or openly, will not stop gun violence. Some assaults may be stopped by gun-toting citizens. But there will also be an increases in incidents of accidental shootings, crimes of passion, and guns getting into the wrong hands. What are you going to say when an irate or disturbed individual grabs a handgun from an open carry holster and kills people?

      If we get the extremists (from both ends of the spectrum) out of the way, then we can engage in a reasoned and logical discussion of the problem and the potential solutions. But the NRA wants to avoid such a discussion at all costs, just like the cigarette companies wanted to avoid a discussion of smoking and cancer. Science dealt a crippling blow to the cigarette industry in the U.S. The NRA desperately wants to keep the handgun discussion on an emotional “gut” level and legislate away the potential for anyone to develop scientific data, fearing the same fate.

      I like and respect guns. They are really interesting pieces of machinery. I like to target shoot. And, although I do not personally engage in hunting, I fully support people who do hunt. But promoting the proliferation of ha guns in public places is not the answer, in my opinion. And I am not eager to participate in your social experiment that feels like a bad parody of the Old West.

      1. You are right. This is not a referendum on the 1st Amendment. It is an ASSAULT on the 1st Amendment. This is a tyrannical move on Apple’s part to censor iPhone user’s freedom of speech.

        1. Well said! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

          Right now I can use this: 🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫

          To add visual communication details as to what time I can meet my buddies at the shooting range or the fish & gun club or a weekend of hunting. Only reason I am adding this anecdote is because a ton of erudite city dwellers on MDN have been asking for weeks, what’s the point of a pistol emoji?

          The point my fellow city denizens, second amendment concerns aside, are many rural activities involving guns are legal and enjoyable pastimes. I have enjoyed many such gatherings in beautiful green mountain settings and feasts thereafter from the campfire. Not your cup of tea, fine, we’re good. But don’t tread on me.

          Bottom line: If Apple walks the path of bowing and genuflecting to politically correct well intentioned fools, well, what happens?

          In a word: Censorship. 🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐

          I REPEAT, pixel pictures have NEVER killed one member of the human race since the beginning of time. Got it? Good. 🌞

        2. You guys are so full of crap! An *assault* on the Fist Amendment? Please explain how your free speech is being unlawfully abridged?! You can still type “gun,” you idiots! Damn, this country is full of dumbasses with extremely inflated opinions of themselves…

          You can complain about Apple’s (potential) emoji change. You can threaten boycotts and such. But you are effectively powerless because this is not an assault on the First Amendment. I absolutely dare you to file a lawsuit. Please! Because you will be slapped down so hard your concussion will last a frigging lifetime. Get a clue…if that is possible,

          1. Let me explain it to you clueless in shorthand.

            Right now I and other MND commenters can use this emoji: 🔫

            Next month, we are FORCED to this: 🤐

            Any questions, brainless?

      1. I know this issue is silly but, I have people who work in the public schooling system. Right or wrong, they are EXTREMELY intolerant in schools about guns, toy guns, pictures of toy guns or even potato chips that are shaped like a gun and there are ridiculous penalties for anyone who violates their policies.
        So, what do you think the schools do when someone sends a message with a gun in it?


        When you get these “groups” who are overly sensitive/reactive and instead of taking or assigning responsibility to the kid or parents, they blame others (Apple or others) for providing even the image of guns on cell phones.

        So, real gun or toy gun in a text is still the same but I can see how Apple decided that maybe making it a toy gun will have less meaning and be less threatening in a text message. It’s definitely a lot more comical that when you say your’s going to cap someone and show a toy gun in the message, then a real looking one.

        1. The real problem we are facing is people running our schools who have feathers where their brains used to be. They are suffering from the SPLAT syndrome. Here is the IDC-10 addenda diagnostic code my girlfriend and I came up with we are planning to submit for the next update to the international listing:

          321.0 SPLAT Liberal Cerebral Defenestration (LCD) or Liberal Acquired Brain Absence (LABA), Complete loss of rationality, cognition, and cerebration due to indiscriminately keeping one’s mind so far open that the brain falls out. First and subsequent encounters.

        2. Thank you for pointing out a major politically correct flaw ingrained in our educators system.

          A pixel picture NEVER killed anyone in the history of humanity. Same with offensive cop killer lyrics and violent video games and movies.

          PIXELS DON’T KILL.

          PEOPLE DO.

      2. Or, GoeB, you could ask why guns are so important to people that they rage over a change to an emoji? This knee-jerk reaction is the NRA gone amok in this country. They have enough people convinced that the government is seeking an opportunity to take over, if only they can get rid of the guns. Absolutely figgin’ nuts.

          1. You can pull the trigger on a freaking emoji all you want. It has nothing to do with the First or Second Amendments, and you are a bloated gasbag with delusions of grandeur. The thought of idiots like you with guns almost makes me want to go out and buy one. I consider people like *you* and your like-thinking ilk to be the problem, not the U.S. Government.

            1. Well, I count about a dozen responses to this issue from you in a row …

              Agitated much?

              Respectfully, I am using my First Amendment RIGHT, to defend my Second Amendment RIGHT.

              I REPEAT: The only thing that is nuts, is to not support Second Amendment freedoms. 🔫🇺🇸🔫🇺🇸🔫

              And that would include Apple retaining the pistol emoji and AGRESSIVELY adding to it. Like shotguns for bird hunting and rifles for big game hunting like deer, etc. Throw in a crossbow or compound bow for archery hunting. Camo patterns would also would be cool. New Apple watch band best seller?

              Got it, Melvin? 🇺🇸🔫🌞

        1. Kingmel, YOU are absolutely nuts if you believe that if citizens didn’t own guns that the govt wouldn’t have become TOTALLY tyrannical by now. If you look through history the first thing facsist, communist, tyrannical, dictatorial govts do is take away guns.

  1. There’s no chance for real confusion. If anyone is going to be communicating about a real shooting, or an active shooter scenario, they had better not be using emoji to do it.

    In any case, the rest of the industry will likely follow, and Microsoft will go back to their Raygun.

    The real problem we have with emoji? There are thousands of totally useless emoji, and frankly no more than a half-dozen that can be used for anything practical. Why are people using them in their present form?

        1. I thought that you claimed to be intelligent, botty! The implication is that kids can easily deliver any message that they want via text message without any emoji at all, and likely much more quickly.

            1. Trump 🔫

              You’r an idiot for thinking TRUMP is anything other than a manipulative patsy for making sure Clinton gets into office.

              He supported the Clintons
              He said if ever ran he’s do it as a republican because they are the most easily to persuade.

              You’re proving him right.

              It’s fucking hysterical how dumb and stupid you are.

            2. I certainly hope that emoji isn’t a death threat against the 45th President of the United States…well, I’d have to snitch you out to the Secret Service, Michael….boy, I’d hate to see the federal police drag you out of your home for “interrogation.”

            3. It has everything to do with the topic, botty, but you keep trying to change it to avoid the fact that this is an argument about nothing. You guys are trying to stir things up over an emoji, once again waving the Constitution and its Amendments like you are the Supreme Court rendering a judgment. Well, you are a fool. This has nothing to do with the First or Second Amendments. Any other issue that you may toss out is equally frivolous…you and your ilk play political manipulation games all the time and then cry foul if someone else does it?! Laughable. The NRA is an organization designed to do just that. So is Fox News, except the joke is on you because Murdoch just wants to profit from your belief system. All so funny. All so sad.

              You have been a waste of space on this forum for years, botty. But I will never back down from your crap.

          1. He’s not intelligent.

            He’s a moron who can’t see past his own agenda. Whatever that is?

            He claims that Apple is trying to persuade %5 of the world’s population that guns are bad.

            Instead of realizing that Apple just wants the world to have fun.

            I’m guessing that most of the world does not access to a real gun, but that squirt guns are available everywhere (except the US).

  2. Apple attempted to wipe out our Southern heritage by banning the flag of Southern pride. Loosing custermers in the process.

    Keep offending groups of customers Apple, until all that’s left are politically correct zealots like the character on SouthPark.

    Condem me if you want, but your heritage will be next. Free speech protects people who offend, not the PC types.

    1. See, that’s precisely what this is about. Free speech indeed protects people who offend, and there is nothing Apple, nor anyone else, can do to prevent them from exercising their right to free speech.

      What Apple can do is exercise the same right in their own way. If Apple, as the company, feels that it is their social responsibility to attempt to reduce dangerous speech, by removing the ways such speech could be spread using their devices, it is entirely their right as a company to do that, and by the same measure, their customers’ right to not buy their products.

      As for that “Southern Heritage”, or the “Flag of Southern Pride” (no such thing; the flag is universally called the Confederate Flag), only 3% of black Americans of the South find it a symbol of their southern heritage. In other words, yes, the confederate flag is a symbol of Southern heritage, as long as you’re talking about whites.

      In the end, make no mistake, Apple is a business, and if some social justice policy (or any other policy) of theirs causes them to lose customers, they will no doubt change it.

        1. Precisely my point. In Target’s case, it is too early to tell, but it seems that the policy will remain in force, as it had no discernible impact on the bottom line.

          For Apple, it remains to be seen, but shouldn’t be any different; I am quite doubtful that the emoji icon will cause any loss of customers.

          1. Uh, it DID have a huge impact on their bottom line. They are down more than 10% for the last quarter, the quarter that policy has been in effect. For a retailer, 10% is pretty much their margin of profit.

            Target just announced to day an emergency program to convert their restroom facilities to single stall locked facilities that anyone can use alone to see if it will please the boycotters, please the LGBTQ crowd of two or three individuals without offending the one or two who demand to use a regular multi-user restroom, and stop the bleeding of the red ink!

            1. There you go!

              I didn’t see that info; I tried googling but didn’t get anything meaningful.

              So, the rule will remain in place for now, but they are clearly in damage control mode.

              As far as boycotts are concerned, if this one was the cause for Target’s slide, that is one mighty efficient boycott. Normally, American’s aren’t really that successful at boycotting anything or anyone if it poses even a slight inconvenience in their lives.

              We’ll have to see how this pans out (boycotts usually fizzle out after a few weeks).

            2. You are usually right. . . but usually boycotts are merely economic in nature. This one has a physical side as well. The people doing the boycott have a real fear of needing to use the restroom while shopping at a Target Store and probably have a rational or irrational fear of encountering a problem (several were reported in the news) of encountering people of the opposite gender in the restroom when then needed to use it. Ergo, since there were alternative places to shop which had not expressed a political position on welcoming LBGTQ into the opposite gender restrooms, that portion of the public took their business elsewhere, to Walmart, Costco, etc. That had an economic effect on Target because there was an easy choice to substitute, which did not provide the fear they felt driving the boycott of Target.

              Most boycotts are political, not fear, driven. This was different.

            3. Bullshit, Swordmaker! Where did you get that FUD, your nether regions? Try down 1.1%, not even close to 10%. And do you think that any downturn *might* have something to do with the massive Target data breach that drove a loss of consumer confidence. I seriously doubt that many people will boycott Target over their bathroom policy, despite the one million signatures claimed by a far right-wing organization. You won’t see it in Target’s bottom line unless you keep a lot of decimal places.

              “Target Corp. Wednesday released Q2 earnings results that met or beat Wall Street expectations: The retailer reported $16.17 billion in revenue for the quarter, compared to forecasts of $16.18 billion in revenue cited by CNBC.

              Q2 same-store sales decreased 1.1%, in line with the company’s guidance of flat to down 2% and in line with analyst expectations for down 1%. This is Target’s first negative same-store sales measure since the first quarter of 2014, according to CNBC. E-commerce sales rose 16% over last quarter, below the 23% increase in the first quarter and the 34% increase during the last quarter of last year.”

              Don’t try to shovel that crap around here.

            4. After seeing KingMell’s post (with citations), I’m now questioning your data (10% down). Where did you get it? Is it accurate?

              Target’s own site claims 1.1% drop in sales (in line with their forecast), so if that bathroom policy was the cause of that sales drop, it appears to be negligible, as Target has previously already forecasted that drop (before anticipating any backlash from the “boycott”). The only figure that looks close to your 10% is EPS drop (11.5% YoY), but that reflects many more factors than just sales, and it is year-over-year.

              Now, this was extremely easy to google so I am beginning to question your other data as well.

            5. Always question the data. Especially when it comes from certain sources on this forum. And, even when it is accurate data, that does not necessarily mean that it is being applied in a relevant and valid fashion. Some people on this forum are quite adept at twisting things to appear to support the opposite conclusion. The scientific method is a great approach to life…decompose the problem, examine the foundational elements, develop valid and rigorous experiments to generate data, and compare that data to real world situations, where possible.

              Gut feel is not fact.

    2. Not quite, no. From Apple: “We have removed apps from the App Store that use the Confederate flag in offensive or mean-spirited ways, which is in violation of our guidelines as has been in our regulations.” And Apple has consistently denied issuing a blanket ban, stating that the flag can be in an App if shown for “educational or historical uses.”

      1. Apple removed game apps that were Civil war related battle re-enactments that only incidentally showed the Confederate Battle Flag. That was not using the “Confederate Flag in offensive or mean-spirited ways, which is in violation of our guidelines as has been in our regulations.” It was a blanket removal of any instance of the use of the Confederate Battle flag by ignorant App Store curators who saw the flag and pulled the app merely because the flag was present. It mattered not that it was used in its historical context, was educational, or that it was not an insult to anyone.

        1. i see someone had to down vote me because I wrote an historical truth. Apple DID indeed remove what I stated they removed. Why does that offend someone? It is what Apple did. TRUTH. Is American history offensive? We had a civil war. Live with it. We had slavery. Live with it. We ABOLISHED IT. . . and that was abolished by REPUBLICANS, not Democrats. Live with it. It was Democrats, not Republicans, who created the Ku Klux Klan. Live with it. These are historical facts. Don’t cover then up. These are facts of our heritage. . . ones we have to live with. . . and either live with or be better than we were then. We cover up and forget the bad things to our peril.

          George Orwell warned us in his seminal novel “1984” that if we do not have a word or symbol for a thing, we not only cannot say a thing, we cannot even think it. The left in this country is hijacking our language and trying to remake words and symbols into THEIR definitions and even trying to disappear words and thoughts. Our children are being taught that certain things are bad to say, bad to draw, bad to chew into shapes, and even bad to make into finger shapes. . . so they cannot even think them when they grow into crippled thought adults who will not be able to think except in prescribed channels they’ve been programmed to think. That is truly frightening.

          If our children have no words, symbols, or referents with which to frame a thought, the idea itself is gone and cannot be re-created. THAT is, in the long run, what this is all about.

            1. botty, Apple is not becoming “Big Brother” in any way, shape, or form. Have you read the book? Apple is *defending* personal privacy!

              You truly destroy whatever shred of credibility thst you might have when you toss out hyperbole like that? What label are you going to use next? Socialist? Fascist? Communist?

              You are such a tool.

            2. It is not surprising to me that you suffer from phobias, botty. Mental issues such as yours ten manifest themselves thusly. Get help.

              You on e again avoided the fact that you blew it. Apple is a defender of public privacy. It is not Big Brother. You are in error once again. It happens quite often on this forum because you love to take things to extremes in attempting to defend your worldview. And, once again, you are wrong. You and your pals can do vote me all you like, but it won’t ever change the fact that you are wrong in almost every way that is important.

            3. “You and your pals can do vote me all you like, …”

              Well, I “do vote” you clueless on this issue.

              See this: 🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫

              Next month: 🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐

              What part of this do you not understand?

            4. “Apple is a defender of public privacy. It is not Big Brother.”

              Really, Melvin?

              Ok, answer me this. Why is Apple removing the symbol of the Second Amendment? 🔫

          1. You are a riot, Swordmaker! As if the Republican Party in the mid-1800s has any meaningful connection to the GOP of today. You would not vote Lincoln into office today. I would have said that you would not even nominate Reagan as your candidate nowadays, but you guys went wacko and nominated Trump. Who knows what you stand for, when much of the Republican Party abhors its own candidate?

            You need to get over your conspiracy theories and your incredible need to label and disparage.

            Look out! The incredible shrinking GOP! I wish all political parties would disappear, and you are making a good effort to destroy yours. Thanks…

            1. Actually if you look at it was Democrats and independents who nominated Trump. Most states that he won had open primaries. In states closed to only Republicans other candidates, mostly Cruz won.

            2. Already making excuses. That will be three elections in a row… When does it become YOUR fault?

              And I thought that you guys were such fanatics about personal responsibility. Why not take some? lol

  3. Where is the outrage that Microsoft changed a ray gun icon to a real gun icon? If the issue is really about Tech companies having too much control over our communications, there should be an equal amount of outrage about Microsoft.

    I applaud Apple’s decision. As someone who believes in common sense gun control reform, I am so sick and tired of the NRA derailing what the majority of Americans want. Glad Aplle is sticking up for the MAJORITY.

    Hey, MDN, you don’t like the change – go use Microsoft products. You’ll get your gun icon.

    1. You’re full of it. There is no such thing as “common sense” gun control. There is gun control or no gun control.
      The NRA is made up of American citizens. I am so sick and tired of people like you making it seem like the NRA is not a group of concerned individuals protecting their God given right enshrined in the Constitution to defend themselves.

      You are right about extremes. However there is no left or right. There is only Liberty or Tyranny. Which one are you for?

      1. Not quite. Majority of your Americans favours gun control. After all, you regulate (heavily) cars, and they aren’t meant to kill people. You regulate them because, if not used properly, they can kill people. You force makers to install airbags, seat belts, you require annual inspection, you require registration. And then, before a person can drive one, he must get training, pass written, then oral test, then get a license from the government. Nobody is suggesting a complete ban on cars (nor on guns). You simply regulate them the same way and you have much safer country. It is a reasonable argument.

          1. Well, well, well. Two anti-gun libtards having a kissy face session.

            Hey you two, until I’m CENSORED by Apple 🤐 and my Secondment Amendment freedoms TRAMPLED UPON in September — I’ll use my FAVORITE emojis on every post: 🔫🇺🇸🔫🇺🇸🔫

            The last word exclaimed by Mel Gibson in Braveheart, “Freedom!”

        1. FACT: The majority of Americans follow over 200,000 gun laws on the books.

          But obviously that is not enough for you.

          Regulating, inspecting, taxing a car is vastly different than regulating, inspecting, taxing a Second Amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

          I don’t expect you understand living in a socialist nation where your gun rights have been taken away since WWII, or earlier.

          1. You are disingenuous.

            There is nothing fundamentally different between regulating cars or guns (or cigarettes, or prescription drugs, or food, or any other think people use that can potentially hurt them). All of those tightly regulated things are still available for sale, every American can still buy them and use/consume them, but there are appropriate regulations that are there to prevent, or reduce, illness, injury or death from them.

            Your second amendment does NOT prohibit regulation. The text says …”right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. The verb “to infringe” means to break the terms of legal rule, to violate, or contravene it. So, the only way to break the right to bear arms would be by prohibiting EVERYONE from owning it. Regulating ownership of arms comes nowhere near.

            While I currently live in New York, my old country has tightly regulated gun ownership. However, if I wanted, I could have a gun (and many civilian people do).

            Tight gun regulations doesn’t mean that the guns don’t exist. It just mean that the country is much safer from gun violence, because the guns that ARE in the civilian hands are registered, licensed, their owners are properly trained and gun deaths are easily tracked to the gun’s owner.

            I don’t expect you to understand, being thoroughly brainwashed by the NRA paranoia.

            1. “It just mean that the country is much safer from gun violence, because the guns that ARE in the civilian hands are registered, licensed, their owners are properly trained and gun deaths are easily tracked to the gun’s owner.”

              I am a realist. You are an unrealistic tedious dreamer. You believe the government can actually SOLVE gun violence. How many nagging issues for decades like education, poverty, have they solved? Answer: Worse than ever.

              1: Gun registration in the U.S. would lead to UNPRECEDENTED government regulation, taxing and tracking private U.S. citizens exercising their Second Amendment Constitutional rights. Not to mention creating yet another huge inefficient government bureaucracy costing taxpayers millions. Bottom line: You don’t register, tax or track a constitutional right, got it?

              Rights are not like cars unprotected by the Bill of Rights. And incidentally, the government registers, tracks and taxes vehicle ownership that kill far more people in the U.S. EVERY YEAR, than gun deaths. And, how many gun deaths are suicides? TWO inconvenient truths you continue to ignore.

              Just like you don’t register, tax or track your MOUTH or your keyboard FINGERS exercising First Amendment freedoms on this forum. You get the parallel construction? Say something totally out of line, I understand the consequences without registering everyone.

              2: You only mention “civilian hands” and completely ignore CRIMINAL HANDS. This sophistry registry you propose will do next to nothing to stop criminals from obtaining guns. You can buy heroin on any street in America illegally, and you buy guns on the street illegally, as well. Not to mention stealing guns from sporting goods stores and private citizens. Sure, criminals won’t pass a background check already in place. But just like the Orlando shooter, the largest mass shooting in U.S. History, the shooter passed ALL laws and ALL background checks to purchase LEGAL firearms used in the shooting. At that purchasing moment, and this is VERY important so please pay attention, he was NOT a criminal until he pulled the trigger to kill. NO LAWS, NO GUN REGISTRY, WILL EVER STOP DEFIANT CRIMINALS FOR THE REST OF TIME. Got it?

              The good people with guns will follow the law. BTW, another inconvenient truth you continue to ignore is how many good guys with a gun, prevented and stopped bad guys with a gun each year? Waiting for the statistics you pride yourself on posting. The bad people with guns will laugh at your myopic registered foolishness and continue to break the law.

              This has nothing to do with the NRA. Although, God bless them for standing up for constitutional freedoms in the face of a media onslaught and Dumbocrat Party. This is about common sense RIGHTS.

              So, who is being disingenuous Mr. Gun Control?

              LASTLY, Apple please keep the revolver emoji and add more like long guns, deer rifles, etc. Git ‘er done!

  4. Whom is it wrong for?
    Is ti better to normalize crime?
    For weapon lobbies, showing up guns everywhere pretending more guns mean more security, the logic is obviously quite clear: More guns sold make just more money.
    They won’t worry too much if tons of people get killed because some other folks felt like: “Oh! He was acting as he would have tried to shoot at me… So, I shot before… Couldn’t know he had no gun at all !”

  5. This is a bizarre angle to create clickbait, guns and Apple.

    Most of the world does not have a gun culture, like the US, so doesn’t need a gun emoji. Most of the world does use squirt guns they are fun.

    It’s bizarre this is even an issue, when would you even need to use a gun emoji? Most of the world outside the US is non guns centric. Get over yourselves.

    1. I’m sorry. Did someone invite you to debate American politics and you find you disapprove of Americans in general? Please feel free to return to whichever Fischer-Price Crackpot Collective you call home and debate whatever you like. I’m sure you come from the land of absolute rational thinking and no such absurdities can be found there.

      So if you don’t mind, we will not get over ourselves, we have things to discuss, but you are so grandly welcome to get over us that I cannot express the depth of my desire, that you forget you ever heard the phrase “United States of America” for all time to come. Nothing would please me more. Squirt away Johnny boy, squirt away with your water gun, have fun and begone.

    2. I support you, Jonathan. Isn’t it funny how these people talk about “God-given” rights, but take offense when *you* exercise those rights. Somehow, they don’t apply to people outside the U.S. ?

      I am ashamed of the subset of the American populace represented in this forum by botty, thelonious, etc. Absolutely ashamed of their hypocrisy and egocentrism.

  6. MDN says it’s not the guns but “mental illness, religious extremism, lack of respect for life, poverty, etc.” that’s the problem.

    So why does the rest of the world have absolutely no such problem on the same scale? From MDN’s stance we must conclude they have more mental illness, religious extremism, lack of respect for life, poverty, etc.

    Is that really what you want to say?

    1. uh, Europe is presently being overrun by Islamic invaders and the populace has no means to defend themselves…please forward your query, “So why does the rest of the world have absolutely no such problem on the same scale? ” to the parents of a raped 12 year old in Munich.

      fück you.

            1. Whole of Europe has functioning law enforcement, whose job is to protect its populace against crime, which may include those Islamic invaders, should they decide to commit crimes.

              In any case, decades of freely available guns in America, and a well-armed population show that guns are practically never used successfully by ordinary citizens to defend anything and anyone. Vast majority of American gun owners doesn’t have highly specialized law enforcement (or military) training in order to know how to tactically respond to any criminal threat. The result is that in majority of home invasion cases where homeowner had a gun and he tried using it, the outcome was bad for the homeowner (data from CDC shows clearly).

              Denis is correct; in whichever European country he lives, he and his family are much safer than any American household with guns.

              There is really no valid argument for unregulated gun ownership. Wherever guns are unregulated, gun deaths are higher; where regulation is strong, gun deaths are lower. This is true across America, as well as the rest of the world.

              The only right way is to regulate guns the same way you regulate cars. There is really no argument why not; after all, guns kill even more people these days than cars, which is precisely because cars were made safer for drivers, passengers, as well as others around them, and this was because of heavy government regulation.

            2. No, Predrag. That CDC data is false. It was prepared with selected data that ignored contrary reports that did not fit its preselected outcome. The CDC used only data in which the perpetrator of the invasion had to have been SHOT and KILLED by the defensive use of the firearm, a rare conclusion of a defensive use.

              In actual fact, a dispassionate look at the defensive use of firearms by the University of Florida economists Gary Kleck, et al, found that 2.5 million times per year in this country guns have been used to PREVENT crimes successfullly, usually without firing a shot. Other studies both before and after have corroborated that finding. I personally have used a firearm TWICE in my life to prevent crimes and protect other people, both times without firing a shot.

              Your argument that guns kill more people than cars is also completely false. 35,211 people died from automobile fatalities in 2015 in the United States. Three times that number were gravely injured. Only 12,942 were killed by firearm homicide in 2015, and about twice that number were injured. You are off by a factor of three on the numbers killed. I grant you that is still way too many killed by bad guys with guns, but it is still a huge assumption on your part that guns kill more than cars. The rest of your assumptions are too many to counter here. . . but the fact is that guns are NOT unregulated at all. You just show how ignorant you are of the gun laws and regulations that are already on the books and what they are and how they are enforced.

              However, the greatest number of gun deaths occur in those areas of the United States with the most restrictive gun laws and regulations. . . where people cannot protect themselves and only the criminal thugs have illegally acquired guns to ride roughshod over their law abiding neighbors who are disarmed because THEY obey the gun regulations and laws that leave them disarmed against the armed criminals. There is a reason why mass shootings occur only where guns are prohibited, in gun free zones. The perpetrators much prefer their victims cannot shoot back. There a dozens of examples where mass shootings have been averted because someone shot back and stopped the gunman by either disabling or killing him, even shootings in schools, but the media doesn’t like to report those because it does not meet their agenda.

            3. Well said.

              I just posted that Predrag uses dubious studies from dubious sources that fit his gun control agenda.

              I believe the full accounting, like you pointed out, is quite different,

            4. Turns out that Swordfish, with all the eloquence of his arguments (and politeness) also seems to cherry-pick limited (and unverified) data to support right-wing gun lobby agenda.

              And “dubious” is only in the eyes of the gun lobby; the data I had quoted on this issue is well corroborated by multiple other research and reviews.

            5. That is false, Denis. The murder rates OUTSIDE the United States is far higher than it is inside the USA. The murder rate in the USA makes it only 134th out of the 196 countries in the world. 133 countries have a HIGHER murder rate than does the United States. . . and much higher violent crime rates than the USA. If you exclude just six areas in inner cities in the USA, both the rates of violent crime AND murder are FAR lower in the rest of the USA. Guns in the USA are used 2.5 million times a year to PREVENT crimes from occurring usually without ever firing a shot. <a =”http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm”>University Study Confirms Private Firearms Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year

              You live in a delusional bubble if you believe what you said. In the United States, a country of 324,270,000 residents, citizens and visitors, only 12,942 people were murdered last year by firearms. That’s a 0.003991118512% rate. 60% of those murders occurred in this six inner city areas with illegal firearms committed by people who were legally proscribed from owning firearms in cities where it is illegal to own firearms. If we were to remove those areas from consideration, Denis, the firearm murder rate in the USA would be based only only 4, 900 firearms related homicides in a country of approximately 322,000,000. . . with a rate of approximately 0.0015%, Far lower than Canada’s, or France’s or any other of the developed world’s except Switzerland’s which has a firearm in every home.

              So much for your canard that “Fewer die from guns outside the USA than in it.” It simply is not true.

            6. Clever, no doubt, but not so fast.

              Your number cleverly excludes other gun deaths (such as suicide or accidents). Those comprise a significant number of gun deaths in USA, so the total is more than twice the number you quote.

              And when you look at the total number of gun deaths around the world, USA is near the top of that list:


              Ten countries have higher rates (most in Latin America), but the rest of the world has lower numbers (and the developed countries’ numbers are significantly lower).

              So much for the canard that USA is lower than Canada or France.

            7. Predrag, People who are going to kill themselves find a way to do it, regardless of the availability of firearms. Poison, hanging, automobile single car accident, jumping from a building, slitting of the wrists, etc. Strangely the rate or suicides between countries is about the same regardless of where people live and the means of doing it. Ergo, it is irrelevant whether they do it with a gun, pills, etc. Accidental deaths from firearms are a very small percentage and actually lower in the US than in some countries with a far lower firearm homicide rate. . . and most of those are hunting accidents, not the kid finds a gun at home and shoots a playmate. Those are actually counted as homicide.

              Your list has only 72 out of 196 countries. My list included ALL 196 countries and was far more inclusive of accurate data than Wikipedia. I will stick with mine on homicides for the above reasons. People WILL find a way to kill themselves. . . and the murder rates ARE WHAT THEY ARE. You can dance as much as you like, but those are the data. Exclude those inner city areas where the thugs are killing each other off with illegally attained weapons in areas where guns are illegal, and the USA’s gun crime and murder rates ARE lower than Canada’s and France’s and most other of the other 196 countries in the world.

              You can add in the suicides if you like, but those suicides would be just as dead no matter what means they’d find to use. . . because, as I said, the suicide rates are pretty consistent from country to country, because again, the reasons for suicide are the same from country to country and they will find a way.

            8. On the question of suicide, you are actually wrong. Studies from the US show that in states when gun laws made it easier to purchase guns, suicide rates increased significantly. Opposite was also true; when gun regulation was introduced, suicide rates dropped. In other words, many of those who killed themselves with a gun may not have gone through it, had the task been more complicated and less instantaneous. This makes sense; suicidal thoughts are rarely that persistent; they come and, if the victim doesn’t quickly act on them, they usually go away, especially when there is someone who can talk them out of it. When gun is conveniently available, the suicide becomes effortless and instant — no time for talk.

              As for other countries, the reasons for suicide are often very much cultural and vary widely from one to another, and suicide rates vary, from almost 30 per 100k people (in places such as Korea or Lithuania) to below 1 per 100k (in the Arab world), with US somewhere half way (13 per 100k) or one third down on that list (around 50th place). So, suicide is definitely NOT the same from country to country.

              As for your other claims, you don’t really quote many sources, but I’ll take your word for it (that you aren’t making it up). I will stick with mine, though (not just CDC, but other, peer-reviewed).

            1. And to give the actual numbers:

              On the average, 25 – 30 Americans are killed by toddlers (children up to three years of age) with guns every year.

              On the average, fewer than 20 Americans died every year from terrorist killings by guns since September 11. Of course, if you want to add September 11, then the number becomes higher, but those are not gun deaths.

              And those are official numbers. And officials say that they are likely considerably under-reported (toddler killings), due to various bureaucratic restrictions (lobbied for by the NRA), that prevent death from GSW be recorded as such under certain circumstances.

            2. That’s false. The killings are NOT under-reported. They are reported as homicides. The NRA has not lobbied any such thing. Quit making stuff up. The statistics are there for anyone to look up. The New York Times was wanting all shooting deaths by toddlers to be reported as accidental, not homicides. Some jurisdictions report as accidental death by firearm, others as homicide with later determination as accidental homicide when the coroner makes the determination. It has nothing to do with the NRA.

            3. I can’t remember anymore where I read this, but I distinctly remember that the data is under-reported. It doesn’t really matter, since the number is already quite high, and higher than gun deaths from terrorists (which was the point of the post).

            4. Botty is the smartest, succinct and laser focused accurate word person on MDN.

              I guess you diss his non-PC style as a way to discredit the content of his responses that run counter to your socialist liberal beliefs.

              Fine, have at it.

              But to gain credibility, you need to provide facts and prove your case. The rest of your name calling juvenile grousing, is just that.

              Get real.

            5. Will you ever give up? Why do you always have to insult those who don’t think like you? You exposed nothing but your own narrow mind here. I never lied; everything I post here is based on information available elsewhere. Everyone here knows that, and I’m sure you know that.

              It is quite amusing to watch people like you helplessly throw around insults when they face facts they don’t like. Rather than debunking with actual information (which you really can’t, as my information can always be corroborated by links, and you simply make up stuff), you say “liar”, “jackass” or similar. Even you can see how juvenile that is.

              Have a nice weekend.

            6. More importantly, why not regulate guns? You regulate car ownership, and you regulate it quite strictly. You require seat belts, airbags, crumple zones (to reduce the chance of injury or death in a crash), you limit speed, put up signs restricting movement (when it is dangerous), you require training, then written test, then practical test, then you require a state-issued license in order to even drive that car, then the car must be registered (with the state), and it must pass an inspection every year, otherwise you cannot drive it. And you have police enforcing all those laws and restrictions, and fining drivers who violate them (and putting some in jail if they don’t pay those fines). And cars have a very specific, practical purpose, and are a daily necessity for life for vast majority of the population.

              So, WHY can’t you regulate guns the same way you regulate cars?

            7. No, 25-30 is not true when you say “killed.” Snopes investigated that claim and found that in actual fact the number is far lower. For example in 2015, there were 43 toddler (supposed – see my comment above) shootings. Only 15 resulted in deaths. 13 of the child him or her self, and two to others. The rest involved injuries, 18 to the child, and 10 to other people.

              I again question the ability of such young children to operate the weapon. Some are obviously true. . . but I do believe that some are merely convenient for the adults involved to blame for their failings. All too frequently, the trigger pull on the firearm involved is way too great for a child of that age to fire.

              I certainly don’t know where you are getting your “official” numbers, but those are not the numbers the FBI has on file, or the ones that Snopes found. Certainly not for deaths.

            8. Well, since toddlers are incapable of buying guns, we have some serious problems with a small segment of gun owners securing firearms.

              Truly sad statistics and certainly a tragedy.

              That said, maybe they were watching Scarface and not the iOS gun emoji. 😈

            9. I am VERY suspicious of some of those stories. For example, the one in which it is claimed a two year old son shot himself in the chest from a .380 Bursa semi-automatic. That gun is a double-action gun, it has an eight to nine pound trigger pull which requires quite a bit of force to pull the trigger. That is literally the weight of a gallon of milk! Some women would have trouble pulling that much with an index finger, let alone a two year old child. Possible? Yes, likely, no. It also has a safety on it that would have to have been released before firing, making the firing even more unlikely.

              Because of that difficulty of a small child actually pulling that trigger, and in fact fitting his hand around the gun designed for an adult hand, on this and the other cases cited, I am very suspicious that this and some of the others were, while perhaps truly accidental shootings, were actually a shooting in which an adult with the gun was involved. I’ve seen it numerous times before, where the adult accidentally shot the child while messing around with the gun and then tried to claim the child found the gun and shot himself or a playmate.

              I also have a problem with this paragraph from the New York Times article:

              A 2013 investigation by The New York Times of children killed with firearms found that accidental shootings like these were being vastly undercounted by official tabulations, and were occurring about twice as often as records said.

              There are no better records kept than firearms homicide records. For this reporter to claim that only half the shooting deaths of children went unreported shows he is making up his data. This is NOT something that would go unreported anywhere! He’s lying, which, unfortunately is typical of those with an anti-gun agenda in the press. In fact, they are reported and record. . . as homicides. However, this reporter wants people to think they are just not reported!

              The other thing I have problems with is when they use teenager in their definition of children. Every time they do, when you actually look at the raw data, “teenager” includes young people up to age 26 and is inclusive of gang bangers shooting each other or playing around with guns they’ve stolen. I’ve learned to take those data with a 100 lb. block of salt.

          1. Most of the mass killings in the USA of this year have been committed by people who purchased guns by legal means. From Orlando, to San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Oregon, etc; each and every one of those shooters walked into a gun store and bought his gun that he later used to kill people.

            Practically all suicides by gun are committed with a legally purchased gun.

            And even some homicides are committed by a legally purchased gun. On those, the number is impossible to accurately determine, since it is often difficult to track the ownership of the gun used for homicide, as it often didn’t belong to the shooter. Most estimates put that number in single-digit percentages (about 5-10%). The number doesn’t necessarily include “straw purchases” (when a girlfriend buys a gun for her boyfriend who isn’t allowed to buy the weapon due to prior felonies).

          2. And when you modify that phrase “legally held” to “legally purchased”, the number goes through the roof. Majority of gun homicides in America were committed with legally purchased guns, that were then transferred into the hands of people who weren’t supposed to have it. Chicago’s strict gun laws can’t help that much if those guns flow freely from the next-door Indiana. It is an obvious sign that national gun regulation is the only way to reduce illegal ownership of guns.

      1. Uh… You think having an emoji that looks like a real gun is going to help save those Europeans from “Islamic invaders”?

        Why are you idiots comparing an emoji to a real gun? Apple is not replacing all the real guns in the world with squirt guns. It’s just an emoji!!! GTFOI!!

          1. Bullshit! It’s about using a toy representation of something to denote shooting for FUN, not MURDER! It’s your convoluted mind that’s turning this into something else. It has no meaning other than what you WANT TO MAKE OF IT.

            It’s an emoji, they were designed to be a fun way to communicate, plain and simple.

            Fucken hate when idiots turn everything into something political. Christ. Get a life and try enjoying it.

            1. I used the real gun emoji all the time. I had no problem with it. Just I have no problem with the new one either.

              I have no problem with people owning real guns, nor do i have a problem with people playing with squirt guns.

              I’ve just got more going on in my life to worry about these stupid petty things that seem to consume yours.

            2. I do not consider any attack, however seemingly benign, on the Second Amendment beneath my attention. But, by all means, get on with the “more going on in my life to worry about.” The significance of manipulation of language and its power to wreak tyranny is beyond your scope.

            3. “I do not consider any attack, however seemingly benign, on the Second Amendment beneath my attention.”

              “I wouldn’t have noticed, I am not a Microsoft user.”

              LOL You’re a child.

    2. What sort of bottled Obama delusions are you chugging? I’m sitting here reading about the UK trying to ban knives now. Where were you when a psycho took a truck and mowed down over 80 men, women, and children a few weeks ago in Nice. The bozo took selfies of himself and the truck.

      Evil will always find a way and it does so ever so clearly on a daily basis in the “rest of the world.”

      1. And still the numbers are infinitesimal compared with the USA. As for a terrorist with a truck, you do remember 9/11? Where were you? Yes, evil will always find a way. In Europe, in the USA and in the rest of the world. BUT the USA has a unique, huge problem that does not exist anywhere else on anything like the same scale. Non terrorist USA citizens killing other USA citizens in numbers that are just extraordinary, horrific and unthinkable anywhere else in the world.

        Why are we mixing terrorism with non terrorist gun crime anyway? You’ll be invoking World Wars I and II next.

        1. Not anywhere else in the world, Eh. How many people have been killed by ISIS? Al-Qaida? The various warlords in sub-Saharan Africa? How about all of the killings done in the name of Marxism around the world? How about July 22, 2011 on the Island of Utoya in Norway? 77 young people dead from a mass shooting, after the gunman bombed a government office building in Oslo? Here’s a list:

          Brussels, Belgium, 31 dead, 310 wounded March 22, 2016.
          Paris, France, 130 dead, 368 wounded, November, 13, 2015.
          Paris, France, 12 dead, 11 wounded, January 7, 2015.
          Burgas, Bulgaria, 8 dead, 0 wounded, July 18, 2012.
          Oslo and Utoya, Norway, 77 dead, 319 wounded, July 22, 2011.
          Apeldoorn, Netherlands, 7 dead, 12 wounded, May 01, 2009.
          London, U.K., 52 dead, 700 wounded, July 07, 2005.
          Madrid, Spain, 192 dead, 2,050 wounded, March 11, 2004

          So much for your vaunted safety. I won’t even go into your current European attacks from the immigrant invasions and the rape epidemic in Sweden where women are even being prosecuted for spraying pepper spray at their rapists because it is a forbidden weapon! Oh, how nasty of them to try and defend themselves from being raped!

          Now you think that terrorism isn’s a crime even if a gun is used in the commission of that crime? You really want to excuse the terrorist because his motives are purer than the criminal who commits his crime purely for economic reasons? You are delusional!

          OK, I will invoke WWII. One Jewish man, with an old revolver and five bullets, for 55 days kept the Nazi’s from coming into the Ghetto where he and his family lived and hauling everyone there to a concentration camp. He finally ran out of bullets.

      2. “I’m sitting here reading about the UK trying to ban knives now.”

        Do keep up over there. Knives have already been banned in the UK for many years. The recent story only concerns ‘Zombie Killer Knives”, which were of a style that allowed them to slip through a loophole in that law. The loophole has finally been closed.

        Of course we still get a certain amount of knife crime and a thousand years of laws against stealing have still not eliminated theft, but I’d rather be in a stadium or shopping mall with a knife wielding madman than a madman with an AK47.

        Anybody carrying a banned type of knife in public within the UK, or using a legally allowed knife in a threatening manner, faces several years in jail . There are exceptions for legitimately carrying knives in connection with your trade and individual cases are judged on their merit, but you would need to demonstrate a pretty convincing reason and back it up with proof of your occupation.

    3. Because a good portion of those county’s have what amounts to mob rule, killing indiscriminately anyone who fails to meet the groups thought control. Just like some of our politicians/media want the USA to become? ! ?

    4. If you exclude just six poverty and gang infested areas of the inner cities in the United States, an area that totals less than 500 square miles of the country’s 3.8 million square miles, the murder rate in the US would be among the lowest in the world! As it is, even including those areas, the United States is 134th out of the 196 countries of the world. Sorry to burst your bubble. Exclude those areas and the US is even farther down the list.

      Just looking at the countries in North and South America is eye opening. The X axis is number of guns per capita, the Y axis is number of murders per 100,000 per year.

      1. What a meaningless chart! It tells us how civilised all those American gun owners are, since they manage to control themselves so well, compared to the banana republics of Latin America.

        Let us clarify this a bit. In America, there are almost 6 guns per each person. There are more than 10 guns per each gun owner (about half of the country doesn’t own guns). In Latin America, restrictions are much more strict, but on the other hand, law enforcement and justice system is often extremely corrupt and inefficient, hence high level of crime and gun deaths.

        When we compare America with other continents, we see how they are by far No. 1 in gun deaths per capita (compared to Europe, Asia, Australia, NZ and Pacific), and even when compared to the Middle East and Magreb lands (North Africa), they are in the top third of the list; same for sub-Saharan Africa. In other words, while yes, there are countries with more gun deaths per capita than in America, literally ALL of the developed (and functioning) countries have significantly lower numbers of gun deaths than America.

        And those numbers include poverty- and gang-infested inner cities of Europe, Asia, Pacific, etc (America is not the only one with the problem).

        1. No, the USA is not in the top third of the list. Your list does NOT include most of the nations of the world. You conveniently ignore the vast majority of the firearms deaths in the world, those being done by state and quasi-state actors in the rest of the world. Again, there is a small area of the USA where there is a problem. . . it is with those people who are criminals who are proscribed from owning firearms already. It is an area totaling about 500 square miles of a country of 3.8 million square miles and involves a number of people less than 1 million out of a population of more than 320 million.

          Your vision is myopic. You concentrate on gun crime to all other forms of murder to exclude the tens of thousands of people murdered in the ISIS attacks. They are still dead, dead, dead. . . but you want to discount them because they were killed with a knife, burning, drowning, or other means?

          1. My list includes 193 nations (all the members of the UN). You can easily google this.

            And yes, I’m ignoring state actors and paramilitary formations. We are not really talking here about those. The discussion here is “…well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”, the right of a private citizen to bear arms.

            People die from all sorts of things and by all sorts of ways. And the functioning state makes efforts to reduce those deaths. It develops health care system to combat lethal diseases; it regulates dangerous products (cigarettes, cars, various chemicals, drugs, etc), in order to reduce the death rate from such products. It puts warning signs on equipment, or objects, where careless persons can get injured or die. Guns, the ONLY products with the explicit purpose of killing another person, are practically unregulated (with all the 20,000 gun laws on the books in various states, there is practically no registration, control of flow, ownership, use, training, oversight, registration, licensing, ANYTHING) on the national level. It is simply absurd.


            1. Predrag, having been a Federally licensed gun dealer in the past, I can tell you that you obviously do not have a CLUE about the national level of regulation and laws on guns. That makes anything you have to say about the issue based on total ignorance. I just bought a hand gun in the last ten days. I filled out multiple pages of forms to conform to the FEDERAL and State regulations that you claim DO NOT EXIST. They exist.

            2. Look, Swordmaker, I’m not really disputing what you say. Other people said elsewhere, there are thousands of various gun control laws on the books in the US, most state, but many federal. The point remains that the myriad loopholes in those laws make it extremely easy for practically anyone to purchase and own a gun.

              My point remains valid: current gun laws in US do nothing to control gun trafficking and ownership in the US. Yes, you had to fill out a bunch of forms, but you could have easily gone to a gun show, or to Armslist.com. The point isn’t really in those 20,000 laws; it is in all the holes in them that let practically anything through.

            3. No, predrag, you cannot just go to a gun show or Armslist.com and buy a gun. It doesn’t work like that. If I were to buy a gun at a gun show today, I have to go with the seller to a dealer, pay the fees the dealer charges and go through a background check, the same as if the dealer sold me the gun, meeting all the same regulations. If you buy the gun on Armlist.com, it has to be shipped to a licensed gun dealer who must again do the paper work and do the background check as if he were selling you the gun from his inventory. The local gun dealer here charges $100 for those services, whether gun show or by shipment. The dealer also has to handle the shipping between dealers. So much for your IGNORANT claims. These are ALL in the FEDERAL LAWS regulating the trafficking and ownership of guns in the US which YOU ignorantly claim do nothing. Where are these loopholes? The problem is that the LIBERALS refuse to enforce the laws we have, always falling back on the demand for MORE laws they won’t enforce after they are passed so they can demand even more laws and regulations, claiming the ones they just got don’t exist, just as you are doing right now!

            4. What you are saying is in conflict with what my understanding of the federal law is:

              “Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms”.

              In other words, individual sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification.

              You may have to record the sale, being a federally licensed gun dealer, but to me, it is clear that an ordinary person doesn’t. I think they call this the “Brady Loophole”.

              As for the enforcement of these laws, that is up to the justice system and law enforcement, and not politicians (liberal or conservative), although by the looks of some data, it seems that the ones that fail to enforce the laws are in what you call “red states”…

            5. PreDrugged is hopeless.

              No common sense, TEDIOUS deflection and Dumbocrat denial.

              Good for you, you ate his lunch.


            6. Oh, dear. First, I’m not an American; so not a Democrat, nor a Republican, not a conservative, nor a liberal.

              And second, my argument still stands unchallenged.

              You may continue to declare it isn’t so, but just you claiming it doesn’t automatically make it so. You should remember that in the future.

            7. Time and time again you RUN OFF into the weeds and then comes DEFLECTION WORDING, off topic, and FAIL to address the CORE POINT OF THE POST.

              You need a checkup for attention deficit disorder.

              So, here it is again and pay attention — HE ATE YOUR LUNCH. And his latest post ALSO ate your lunch.

              You should remember that. 🔫🇺🇸🔫🇺🇸🔫

            8. THe core point of all my points remains standing, unchallenged: the gun regulation in US is extremely non-efficient, riddled with loopholes and completely ineffective in preventing those who shouldn’t buy guns from buying them. This is entirely due to the lobbying efforts of the NRA, who doesn’t actually represent gun owners (who actually mostly favour gun regulation), but gun manufacturers, who vehemently oppose any form of it. I have effectively and efficiently argued this point citing examples and widely available data. You countered with nothing.

              You saying that anyone eats my lunch doesn’t automatically make it true. You really need to learn this. You look really silly, claiming things that clearly don’t bear any semblance to reality.

            9. JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – If you’ve met the legal requirements — you’re old enough (18 for long gun, 21 for handgun) and pass a background check — then buying a gun in north Florida isn’t hard.

              There are dozens of gun stores in North Florida. Plus many weekends there are shows going on around the area that sell guns as well as hard-to-find weapons and collectibles. Courses are also offered in order to apply for a concealed firearm permit.

              While critics say gun shows can attract people who should not be buying guns, many law enforcement agencies say that’s not really a problem.

              Clay County Sheriff Rick Beseler says there are a lot of misconceptions about gun shows.

              “Gun dealers who go and participate in a show are still bound by all the rules and regulations that a gun store would have to have,” Beseler said.

              Beseler added that the dealers at gun shows are licensed retailers who must comply with the same background checks and waiting periods that any other gun dealer requires.

              Beseler says private sales between individuals do take place at gun shows, but he says they take place elsewhere, as well.

              “I really don’t think a criminal is going to go to a gun show where police officers are numerously posted and try to secure a firearms when it twice as easy to break into somebody’s home and steal one.”

              Even gun store owners say gun shows are not a problem.

              Anthony Testa, of Yulee Pawn and Collectable, says guns shows have their place.

              “Even though I am a dealer, I believe it is your right to sell personnel firearms,” Testa said. “I mean, if you had to go to a dealer for everything that would be kind of hectic.”

              Testa says sometimes it costs more money to buy at stores, so he understands people go there looking to save money.

              Jon Gutmacher, an attorney and author who specializes in gun rights in Florida, says guns shows have come under a lot of criticism by anti-gun advocates. He says the concern is people who sell guns privately at gun shows might be stretching the law.

            10. I have read all your posts and certainly you are an authority on this subject and appreciate all the detail and libtard blow back. 🔫🇺🇸🔫🇺🇸🔫

  7. For christ’s sake… Emoji are supposed to be about fun. Changing the gun to a squirt gun makes more sense in that context. Are people so bored with their lives that this crap really matters!?

    1. It is an expression of a political view. It is a subtle commentary targeted at a specific group of people, who have no ability to comment back. To see the nuances of what is going on takes a level of adult sophistication that might escape you at the moment.

      1. No. It’s not. It’s people trying to overthink things. So called intelligent people who always try to read more than what’s there.

        You seem to completely overlook the context here… Apple is clearly making their messaging system more fun. Did you not see all the new things Apple added at WWDC? Changing it to a squirt gun CLEARLY FALLS IN LINE WITH THAT THINKING AND THOSE CHANGES.

        It’s all of you people taking it completely out of that context and making it something more.

      2. Well then, theloniusmac, maybe those people need to be less sensitive. This emoji has “triggered” a lot of hyperbole. Teh squirt gun is in line with the “cartoon bomb” and other silly icons, is it not.

        And anyway, here’s a political statement… e-mojis were invented in Japan. If anything removing the pistol is in line with that country’s feelings on guns. You should go to Tokyo sometime, you’ll find it hard to feel safer in any other major metropolitan city.

    2. Hey, clueless.

      This subject is not about a serendipity moment revolving around a bunch of girls just having fun.

      This is a political paradigm SHIFT for Apple Inc. thumbing their PC nose at the SECOND AMENDMENT.

      CENSOR: 🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐

      THIS: 🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫

      Got it?

  8. Some people don’t seem to understand the context of this change, though it is clear to anyone who paid attention to Apple’s announcement about changes to the iMessage platform. The entire point of messaging is to allow people to communicate in fun ways, and all of the changes to iMessage Apple announced recently were centered around making messaging more *fun*. As such this actually has little to do with politics, despite the predictable insistence of the gun nuts of the world.

    1. Not to mention it’s inline with Apple’s other icons. The cartoon bomb, for example, which is used as an example of why Apple shouldn’t change the gun icon… it seems like Apple is simply moving the pistol in line with their other icons.

      1. Once again, you are diving in the weeds and off topic.

        I don’t care about your BIASED stupidity when it comes to guns and your 24/7 HATRED of the NRA.

        Swordmaker and others have THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED your 10-year old MISINFORMED posts on this topic.

        What are you smoking, Predrug?

        You are too SMUG to simply admit your ignorance and areas of gun laws you are clueless about.

        You should remember that.


  9. Who the hell needs a gun for an emoji. I think they did a great service to society to take out something so few people understand how to use or even communicate about. Our society has lost its ability to act civil and with that we loose privileges. If a squirt gun removes some assholes ability to communicate effectively so be it.

      1. Oh. Sorry. I thought the US constitution only applied to US citizens… I didn’t realize 95% of the rest of Earth’s occupants were also given that right.

        Your’e a self-centered, stupid, ignorant, “american” idiot.

        1. Hey Mikey,

          The rest of the world is deprived of gun rights, too bad and I feel your pain.

          Unless of course you live in an ISIS occupied area of planet earth where you don’t stand a chance.

          1. “deprived” of gun rights… You mean those countries with higher populations and less gun related deaths? Or do you mean those countries that actually respect law enforcement? Or do mean those countries that respect one another?

            I’m sorry… Once again we have an ideology that’s to force their belief on EVERYONE ELSE.

            Tell the Jews, the Mayans, the native americans, the africans, the indians, etc. how that will all benefit them.

          2. Furthermore, I’d like to point out, that when religion is brought up… it’s 95% of the world that believes in God and only 5 believe you’re all stupid.

            Which is the right statistic? Since you believe in yourself… it’s the one you believe. Self-centered, egotistical, schizophrenic minds.

    1. I take my gun rights seriously. And if you think removing a pixel picture is going to stop the aholes you refer to, time to wake up cause you’re late for work …🔫

  10. am I wrong in my understanding that the squirt gun emoji will turn into a ‘normal’ gun on other devices like android phones?

    if this is true it will be a big window for misunderstanding.

    1. people one starring me, eh you’re so wrapped up in your fanaticism (which ever side you are on) that you are probably not even reading my post.

      if what people say that the squirt gun will turn in a ‘real’ gun on the receivers phones (if it’s not an iPhone) you believe that WON’T cause misunderstanding?

      a kid sends a squirt gun to a friend thinking it’s a fun thing and the receiver say another kid gets a ‘real ‘ gun won’t cause issues (say with parents, teachers and stuff) ?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.