It’s interesting how only supportive comments show beneath this article until one clicks to “load” more… but upon loading more, I find more logical responses than of those who are in agreement with this article. They’ve already pointed out major flaws in logic in the article (inanimate objects are incapable of responsibility; the humans ‘responsible’ weren’t even an option; the graphic showing terror deaths vs gun deaths is misguided), but I’d like to extrude the last flaw. Not only is it misguided, “terror” and “gun” do not lie on the same plane of objectivism. “Terror” is an act that is performed, “gun” is an inanimate, manufactured object. Therefore, that graphic, which I’m sure rallied the “yesssss” response from anti-gun proponents, is pretty, but factually invalid. How many of those gun deaths were included in acts of terror? San Bernardino, does it fall under “terror” or “gun” or both? (hint: any answer to that would result in the graphic being thrown out due to skewed statistics). What qualifies an act of terror? (Especially since most “terror” acts, according to the terrorists, were acts of faith and religion, not simply to incite terror.)
I couldn’t care less about the Apple vs Government debacle, but I can plainly say it has zero to do with the 2nd Amendment (…a right to bear arms to protect against the government should it find itself swollen with power…) unless we are considering the Apple iPhone an “arms” object in this case.