Unicode only says that it's a gun, and only recommends how it should look. IME's are free to make the emojis look however they want at their discretion. Note Samsung's saltines instead of chocolate chip cookies for "U+1F36A Cookie". Consistency is laudable, but we live in a world with multiple cultures, meanings, and contexts, so in the end consistency might actually be more harmful and reductionist.
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
Additionally, your pointing out that the example glyph looks like a beretta only has any kind of weight if you can also point to guidance that specifies to what level it should be followed.
A Microsoft spokesperson said “Our intent with every glyph is to align with the global Unicode standard, and the previous design did not map to industry designs or our customers' expectations of the emoji definition.” (https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/04/microsoft-new-real-gun-e...)
I would operate on the condition that the standard denotes that items representing the unicode can be flavored/styled to the producers desires, but should not misrepresent the item/object being conveyed. A water gun != a pistol and a laser gun != a pistol. Both are altogether different items/objects. If Windows/Apple want unicode for those objects they should appeal to the standards board to make it happen. It would be acceptable to hide the pistol emoticon in their UI while still allowing it to display correctly when used. Masking it as something it is not is just misleading though.
Why have a standards body at all if it's just going to be up to the 3rd parties to determine what is going to be displayed then? Like I said before, they should be free to display each unicode item/object artistically how they see fit, they should however not be free to change what item/object is to be conveyed entirely.
There seem to be a bunch of people going through this thread down voting any responses which criticize the Apple decision. Apparently favoring communication consistency makes us gun nuts.
Maybe it’s anti-gun people who think that I’m a gun nut? I actually had no idea what gun it was – I know nothing about guns – and had to search quite a lot before I found an image which fit the reference glyph. On reading that that particular model is the standard handgun for much of the US armed forces since 1990, it made sense that it would be chosen as a representative model of a “PISTOL”.
Here's the problem: a toy gun is not the same meaning as a gun. Emojis can vary their visual representation, but should not change the underlying meaning.
If a hospital has a rule against taking guns on premises, nobody thinks that would apply to a toy gun. A toy gun is a different semantic object.
