Petition Asks Apple to Pull NRA Practice Range App

| News

A petition being hosted at SignOn.org is asking Apple to pull an app from the NRA that includes a shooting range. The petition calls the app, NRA: Practice Range, an "insult to the victims of gun violence" because it was released on the one-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

NRA: Practice Range Screenshot

NRA: Practice Range Screenshot

"Out of respect for the victims and to signal Apple's support for common sense measures to help end gun violence, we call on you to rescind your approval of this shameless new product," the petition said.

On the App Store, the NRA describes the app as, "the National Rifle Association’s new mobile nerve center, delivering one-touch access to the NRA network of news, laws, facts, knowledge, safety tips, educational materials and online resources."

In addition to the informational materials, the app includes a shooting range that allows user to shoot targets on three shooting ranges. The app is free, but has in-app purchases to unlock additional gun models, including a Colt pistol, an MK11, and a Dragunov SVD.

The Mac Observer Spin The Mac Observer Spin is how we show you what our authors think about a news story at quick glance. Read More →

The politics of gun control have intensified in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school massacre. The left has been invigorated to achieve meaningful limitations on assault weapons and high capacity gun clips, while the the right has been equally invigorated to maintain a line in the sand against any new controls or measures.

The NRA sees Apple's iPhone platform as a meaningful tool for arming its supporters and constituents with information. At the same time, some of those who want more restrictions on gun ownership in the U.S. see the NRA's app as a cynical propaganda tool.

Because of Apple's tight control over the App Store, it's no surprise to see a petition like this launched. In a walled garden, there is always someone who wants the gatekeeper to see things their way. We'd be surprised if additional petitions on either side were launched, especially if Apple were to appear to react to this one.

There are many shoot 'em ups in the App Store, including untold numbers of games where the object is to shoot people, monsters, and animals instead of targets. It's conceivable that Apple could find itself in the cross hairs from both sides.

Popular TMO Stories

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

27 Comments Leave Your Own

rplat

Apple should pull nothing. Yielding to these radical gun grabbers is wrong and unnecessary.

geoduck

I have a deep hatred of guns. Personally I think the second amendment should be repealed and sane gun laws enacted, starting with taking most of them away. Yes, I am one of rplat’s “radical gun grabbers”. However this seems exceedingly tame in comparison to FPS games already on the AppStore and MacAppStore . Apple should leave it. This game is not the root of the problem.

skipaq

I am not a gun owner and have never owned a gun. Still this petition is unwarranted. It would set a bad precedent as an assault of basic rights Americans have enjoyed from the beginning. A repeal of the second amendment would set an even worse precedent.

Also, I have never been a member of the NRA.

zewazir

Why do people hate an inanimate object?  Because people have been killed by them?  If the hatred comes from the killing, why not hate cars, which kill far more people than firearms - even including recent wars.  And though the carnage is in lower numbers, the hatred of killing implements can be extended to kitchen knives, baseball bats, tire irons, and even golf clubs while leaving out hundreds of other means. When talking about deaths due to violent crime, guns are a minority. Oh, well, gun haters will continue their irrational fear/hatred no matter what is said.

Mean while, thanks to the foresight of those who added the Bill of Rights to our Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is here to stay, since it is unlikely in the extreme the gun grabbers will ever get two thirds of both houses of congress to agree to an amendment repealing our rights, let along the congresses of 3/4 of the states.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

We have really turned into a nation of p***ies.

geoduck

zewazir
good question. For me it’s a matter of purpose. A car may kill people, probably more than guns do, but cars are there for some other reason. Cars incidentally harm. The same goes for knives, tire irons and so on. The only thing firearms are for is to harm. As Lynard Skynyrd said:

Its a Saturday night special
Got a barrel that’s blue and cold
Ain’t no good for nothin’
But put a man six feet in a hole

Hand guns are made for killin’
Ain’t no good for nothin’ else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don’t we dump ‘em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

LibertyFirst1776

Oh, the bully censors have their panties in a twist now don’t they?  Here we have a non-violent app that provides entertainment by virtually shooting at targets, not people.  Even that is too much for the hysterical leftists, who demand we submit to tyranny and relinquish our 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.  Every tyrant has started by taking over healthcare or taking weapons from the people.  When you control healthcare, you control the people said Stalin.  When you control the weapons, the people will follow said Hitler.  Sounds frighteningly like Obama to me.

geoduck

Every tyrant has started by taking over healthcare or taking weapons from the people.

Oppressive tyrannies like Canada
or Great Britain
or Japan
or Australia,
or Germany
or…

Bryen

(( Why some people says if the hatred hated ( the shooting game ) they ought to hate the cars too, Because people have been killed by them? )) No the car don’t killed people, the drivers killed the people, or drunk driving just like people shoot other people.

Richard

How about we use our time to solve the problem which is the type of guns & magazines that killed the children & teachers in Conn.

Lou Skolnick

geoduck: A car may kill people, probably more than guns do, but cars are there for some other reason. Cars incidentally harm. The same goes for knives, tire irons and so on. The only thing firearms are for is to harm.
____________________________________________________________
Lou: There are times when it is legally permissible to kill a human being—therefore no excuse—none—is needed to justify maintaining the implements necessary to perform that legal activity.

geoduck

How about we use our time to solve the problem which is the type of guns & magazines that killed the children & teachers in Conn.

YES!
I have friends that hunt and one of them told me something interesting. “You never need more than three bullets”. He went on to explain that whether you were hunting deer or pheasant or ducks if you didn’t get them in the first two and to give padding, three shots they are gone. So why allow large magazines? He had lever and bolt action rifles for hunting but saw no need for semi-automatic firearms for hunting. In his opinion if you weren’t good enough to hit the target with one or two carefully placed shots you had no business being out there. All you were doing was spraying the landscape and endangering others. And pistols? Fugettaboutit, in his opinion they were just toys for yuppies. He hunted and hunting took a hunting rifle. Note this guy was an NRA life member, avid hunter and fierce defender of the 2nd amendment. Yet even he could see that some limitations on guns were needed for the safety of others. He even worried that the NRA was too absolutist.

To carry this further, there are technological fixes that would make a huge difference. For almost two decades it has been possible to have a stock that recognized who is shooting it and only fire for the authenticated owner either through palm or fingerprint scanners or by an RFID tag carried or warn on the person. This would have prevented what happened in Connecticut. How about mandating a 25% reduction on homeowners insurance for people that do not own guns? Maybe some companies are doing that already. I hope so. Why not background checks for EVERY gun purchase. Hell it took me longer to buy a car than it would a gun at a gun show. While you’re at it how about mandatory classes and evaluations for gun ownership. Yet whenever people bring up these ideas; limits on magazines, semi-automatics, background checks and police approval for people that own guns, and financial incentives the NRA acts like the Soviets just crossed the Rio Grande

How about putting a hell of a lot more money, yes government money, into mental health. That would have prevented Connecticut and probably Aurora as well. They emptied and closed the asylums and promised well run outpatient care, but the second part never happened. There are some people that need to be kept away from harmful things.

But back to the topic, banning this app would be stupid. Video games are not the cause of this problem. It is the result of a violent culture that celebrates gun violence. This game is a symptom not a cause.

geoduck

GDit I wish we could edit posts. I screwed up the blockquote

Bryan Chaffin

Sorry, Geoduck. We really *are* working on it.  In the meanwhile, I corrected the quote tag.

akcarver

Geoduck, I don’t throw this word around lightly. If you honestly believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is going to stop an insane or evil person from getting one and going crazy in a mall or school near you, you are a fool.

The Second Amendment is not and has NEVER been about hunting. It has been about the ability to protect you and yours. And yes, GERMANY did ban guns under Hitler, and 6,000,000 Jews and 4,000,000 others are DEAD because they did not have the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. When Castro came into power, he took away the people’s guns, and they have now suffered for longer than I have been alive (50 years) under that tyrannical government.

The proper answer is to EXPAND gun ownership, so that the bad guys won’t be able to be sure who might be around to stop them. The killer in Newtown killed himself once he realized someone was coming to stop him. The same thing happened in Portland, and in Seattle last summer. Also, these mass shootings have ALL occurred in so-called “gun-free zones.” All that is is a target-rich environment. The crazies and evil people don’t go where there is the possibility of them being stopped before they can kill a bunch of people. Every time these killers have been stopped before they were able to kill more than 3 people, it has been because someone else was prepared and equipped to stop them. EVERY TIME. More guns=less crime. Get a gun, learn how to use it, and be prepared to protect yourself and those around you.

Bryan Chaffin

Mind the name calling. This has been a polite discussion so far, and I intend to keep it that way.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I’m gonna disagree with one thing akcarver says: Get a gun, learn how to use it, and be prepared to protect yourself and those around you.

This is bad advice. If you have a mental block against firearms, please just stay the hell away from them. You will never be comfortable with them or respectful of them if you bring that disposition in with you. Enough of your friends and neighbors are comfortable with and respectful of firearms that you’ll likely derive the benefits of widespread private ownership anyway.

Glenn

Thanks Bryan (and other contributors) - this has been more civil than most discussions of guns on the Internet.  And really, why shouldn’t we respect each other, since we all share the same goal : reduce death, violence and crime.

The one goal we may not all share, is preparation for the possible overthrow of our own government.  I’m not sure how serious proponents of this really are.  Is it just something they bring up to try to sway the issue, or do they really think a loose knit bunch of gun owners could take on the US military?  Do they really think the men and women of our military would launch a nation-wide attack on its own citizens?  This just seems to be one of the most absurd arguments within this debate.

Lou Skolnick

Glenn: The one goal we may not all share, is preparation for the possible overthrow of our own government.  I’m not sure how serious proponents of this really are.  Is it just something they bring up to try to sway the issue, or do they really think a loose knit bunch of gun owners could take on the US military?
____________________________________________________________
Lou: According to its author, James Madison, the 2nd Amendment is about insuring a credible civilian capacity to overthrow the FEDERAL government. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the author.

If you feel that purpose is not appropriate for the 21st Century, then there is a procedure to update the Constitution.

Do note, James Madison was not talking about half a dozen rebels overthrowing the government for “for light and transient causes” (as the Declaration of Independence phased it), but of a massive rebellion by “a militia mounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and CONDUCTED BY GOVERNMENTS possessing their affections and confidence ...”

That being said, if you think that a loose knit bunch of gun owners can not take on the US military, then you have no memory of the French Resistance and the German War Machine—and I’m talking about the French!

No one says you have to confront them nose-to-nose. A few well placed snipers and a sympathetic civilian population to hide them can do wonders.

Imagine 25,000 snipers. Out of a civilian population of 300 million, that is less than one percent of one percent. If they manage to neutralize 1,000 snipers a year it will take 5 years to reduce them to 80% efficiency (assuming no new recruits).

Look how hard it was for England to deal with the IRA—and the IRA phoned in warnings to minimize causalities.

After our Civil War, the KKK was organized to get rid of the Carpetbaggers. We tend to think of the KKK as losers, but the fact was, as the Black and White Republican body count mounted, the North got tired of occupying the South. Just as we wanted out of Viet Nam when the body count mounted.

All that being said, even today, we have the modern equivalent of food tasters for the President when he eats away from the White House or Camp David.

ibuck

I agree with Geoduck and Glenn. Government haters cannot stand up to our military, who don’t even need to send soldiers against them. Then can send drones. If we, including the NRA and members, cannot stop mass killings, then we should consider repealing the 2nd amendment. And we could start over, considering common sense gun laws that are explicit, and don’t hinge on interpretations of what a comma means.

gilimeod

I am an NRA member. I immediately bought the app so that Apple would know it is marketplace, not an idealog.
The problem is perscription drugs under the false security of licensed health-care professionals. Look it up people. Most of these mass killings were by people under a doctor’s care. A doctor that is being put into the position of protecting the public interest. That is an inherent conflict - their job is to care for a patient. So users of psychotropic drugs are the ones needing to be registered. We need to plug the Pharmacy loop-hole..

zewazir

(( Why some people says if the hatred hated ( the shooting game ) they ought to hate the cars too, Because people have been killed by them? )) No the car don’t killed people, the drivers killed the people, or drunk driving just like people shoot other people.

We mention the inconsistency because it IS an inconsistency.  Gun haters hate firearms, even though a rational mind knows it is the person behind the trigger that causes the damage.  Rational minds also know that it is the person driving the car who makes the mistake (driving drunk, texting, etc.) that leads to fatal accidents, and that it is the criminal wielding the knife, baseball bat, tire iron, or other implements to harm their victims.  However, gun haters blame the mere ownership of guns for gun crimes.  Therefore, if they are to be consistent, they should also blame cars, knives, bats, and all other items that cause unnecessary deaths.  Pointing out the fact that they do NOT blame anything but the operator when something other than a gun causes harm just shows the hole in their thinking.

zewazir

zewazir
good question. For me it’s a matter of purpose. A car may kill people, probably more than guns do, but cars are there for some other reason. Cars incidentally harm. The same goes for knives, tire irons and so on. The only thing firearms are for is to harm.

Sorry, but the bolded part is just dead wrong.  While firearms were invented for the purposes of war, that does not mean that is their only current purpose. Explosives were invented for the purposes of war, yet every July 4th millions of American people enjoy using explosives of varying kinds for pure entertainment/celebratory purposes - some of which are actually more powerful than the original explosives used in warfare.

Likewise, firearms, while invented for warfare (killing people) they have a number of other uses.  Marksmanship, for instance, is an internationally recognized sport.  It is even in the Olympics. I personally enjoy a subclass of marksmanship called rapid fire.  In 4 out of 5 attempts, I can put 30 shots through a 5 cm circle at 100 meters in under 30 seconds.  It is a skill I am personally proud to have developed. Not many people can do that, even military snipers because they’re trained to shoot slow and SUPER accurate.

Then there is the matter of self defense.  90% of the time in self defense, the mere presence of the firearm is enough - there is no need to proceed to the killing part.  In fact, recent studies indicate the the mere knowledge of presence of firearms acts as a deterrent to crime. Just look at crime statistics in regions that have enacted concealed carry rights.  As for large magazines and such, if the bad guys have them, then so should the good guys.  And not just law enforcement, because law enforcement can be as much as 15 minutes away when seconds count in saving one’s life, or the lives of one’s family - or even the lives of strangers.

As for the intent of the 2nd Amendment, well, you may trust the current government to not go of the deep end. And as much as I dislike Obama’s policies and blatant erosion of 1st amendment protections, as much as I detest the erosion of 4th and 5th amendment protections under the last administration and extended under Obama, I don’t think the CURRENT government is about to pounce on us with absolute tyranny. (just a little, moderated tyranny….) However, can you say that about government 50 years from now? 100?  200?  The one thing history books are chock full of is governments which start out benevolent, and turn virulent.  And that eventuality is what the 2nd Amendment is designed to prevent.  Yes, PREVENT.  The intent is NOT to have to come to blows with a tyrannical government, rather the intent is to never have the need to fight our own government because the government will always be aware that the people have the RIGHT, under the 2nd Amendment, and under the principles of the Declaration of Independence, to control their own government, and that right extends to the use of firearms, if the need should arise.  The idea is by having the means, the need will never arise.

Meanwhile, hatred/fear of firearms is irrational. Firearms, by themselves, are no more dangerous than a car.  It IS rational to fear criminals, since criminals literally make their livings by harming others. One of their tools is firearms.  However, one of the tools of DEFENSE from criminals is also firearms.  Removing firearms for defensive purposes just leaves criminals with those firearms, and leaves law abiding citizens as helpless victims. It is not coincidence that mass shooting take place in places that are traditionally gun-free zones.

zewazir

@iBuck: Can’t stand against our military?  That’s what the former Soviet Union thought about a bunch of tribesmen carrying antique rifles in the mountains of Afghanistan.  They got their duffs handed to them.  In the army I specialized in counter insurgency, because the primary assignment of my unit was rear area security. I know haw it works, and it is not that difficult to really mess with a high-tech army.  Did you know drones can be hacked?  But, as I stated in an earlier post, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to PREVENT the need to counter a tyrannical government by retaining the ability to do so.

Partsmutt

Wow. There’s a lot of emotion without logic coming from the gun control zealots.

I hope you’re fortunate enough to never need protection for your family. When seconds count, help is only minutes away.

Bryan Chaffin

Both sides of this bifurcating issue have been quite reasonable, if passionate, about their positions here in this discussion, Partsmutt.

RagTopMan

The Second Amendment is a solemn promise to the American people that the government will strive to not make us so angry that we want to shoot them.

Getting rid of the Second Amendment would be a revocation of that promise.

I find it interesting that many parts of the country with the most permissive gun laws often have the lowest violent crime rates.

Log-in to comment