Apple and the Gun Emoji

The issue isn't that people are necessarily seriously asking people to bring guns.

It's that people might use a toy emoji which others interpret differently.

These two messages would be interpreted very differently:

> I'm going to get you back. :toy_gun:

> I'm going to get you back. :real_gun:

No, they won't. This article is classic faux Reddit hivemind outrage. I have never even used the gun emoji once. have you?

First of all, I don't think the article is outraged. I'm certainly not. I think it was a well-intentioned move by Apple with unforeseen consequences, not some grand evil plan.

Secondly, you're entirely missing the point of my comparison. I have never used the real gun emoji, but I might certainly use a toy gun in fun. The problem is that the composer might be trying to send a fun message, but it would be received negatively.

To be clear, I really don't care either way about the existence of a gun emoji. If Apple wants to remove it from the keyboard, that's fine and if they want to keep it that's also fine by me. My concern is with silently introducing a non-compatible change: it's analogous to silently making a dramatic change to the side effects of an API method without changing the name or announcing the change.

Why are you so defensive of this move? What advantage is served by switching out the emoji instead of simply removing it form the keyword?

Do you think this emoji exists on the Apple keyboard without ever being used?

> "your lunatic sociopath" should be > "your lunatic sociopaths"

ftfw

Your right though, we should let Apple control and dictate how language is used (since emoticons are now a part of modern day language) since they obviously know best. Btw, you can't legally bring an automatic weapon to a public place. Also nice to know you literally can't speak to just the topic at hand without bringing completely irrelevant topics into the conversation just to spew your political biases, which it seems is what Apple is trying to do, maybe you are just two peas in a pod.

> I have never used the real gun emoji, but I might certainly use a toy gun in fun. The problem is that the composer might be trying to send a fun message, but it would be received negatively.

Is there a class of people that you're both (a) comfortable enough joking about shooting with toy guns, yet also (b) slightly nervous about them coming after you with a real gun?

Sorry, this is about America and guns, which means that it is absolutely relevant. For the record, I am Canadian, love guns, but I don't think every fool should be entitled to his tool of rage. All Apple is doing is making an emoji into a toy. If you want to talk about guns, you can do that by spelling it out. If I say, lets bring and AR15 to the gun range, I know what you mean and Apple has done nothing to stop, change or control my speech.

I could easily imagine it happening.

Maybe you played a prank on your boyfriend. It's entirely possible that he would get you back by shooting a water gun at you. But it's also possible that he might get really mad about it and threaten you.

See the comment by teddyh:

> The unicode code chart¹ actually says “PISTOL = handgun, > revolver”, and the reference glyph (with a larger version > on page 4) is pretty clearly a Beretta M9.²

> ① http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1F300.pdf#14

> ② http://www.beretta.com/en/m9/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9

This is Apple breaking from standards to enforce a political agenda, and while we may disagree this is still Apple "changing" your speech, albeit not stopping or controlling it.

Weapons aren't the only thing that can be used as a tool of rage, as we witnessed in Neice France just recently when a packing truck was responsible for more deaths than many acts of gun violence put together. Hiding guns and their representations from the public wont stop criminal elements from abusing them, what we need is laws that punish those who use or brandish guns outside of self defense in a very severe manner. As in your threaten someone or brandish a weapon during the act of a crime and you go to jail for life, case closed. Gun violence would cease overnight and we could still respect the rights granted by the constitution.

Since you've seen his comment, please also see my response to that comment and address the points made therein.

Besides, the argument "no av program can catch ALL viruses, so it is pointless to use any av program at all" doesn't carry particularly well, regardless of how you reword it.

I've reviewed this document, but where does it say that this can't be a toy version of the item? Many emojis are cartoon versions. I can even run over cartoon people with cartoon trucks. I can even use my new apple toy gun with toy people. As far as deterrents, I think the evidence is that it is of limited effect, though some studies say more: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal... I don't think terrorists care much about jail terms or emojis.

Replied to comment in question, please read and respond.