Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 10, 2013, 02:49 AM   #1
hafr
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

It's impossible to miss the discussion following the latest shootings in the states, and there is a very loud group of people saying "banning guns means less guns and less gun violence" and another very loud group saying "don't you dare touch our guns, they're protected by the constitution".

Now, as a person who's not the least bit interested in owning weapons (my time in the army was enough) and as an economist - I'm mostly interested in numbers, correlations and such.

I just can't seem to find any kind of evidence that imposing tougher gun laws would in fact make society safer. When saying this I usually get to hear that I'm a scary man, that I'm stupid for not being able to understand the concept of "less guns = less crime" and other argumenta ad passiones.

The only fact based argument I hear against gun ownership is that suicidal gun owners are more likely to use their guns when killing themselves than suicidal people who do not own guns, and that crimes of passion in the home more often include guns when there is a gun in the house than when there is not. These are both very good arguments against gun ownership, but it says absolutely nothing about the general security in the society or that it would stop these mass killings.

Another argument is comparisons between Japan and the US. Which is a comparison that lacks any importance when looking at comparisons between the states in the US or comparisons between more countries. Using only two examples when comparing only two factors is just ridiculous.

So, I'm not out to disprove anyone, I have no interest in protecting anything, I just want to know if there is anything fact based to support the claim that tougher gun control makes for a safer society - and if so, please show it to me.

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

Just Facts: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

No Correlation Between Gun Control Laws and Violent Crime Rates: http://inmalafide.com/no-correlation...t-crime-rates/

Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...anted=all&_r=0
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 03:16 AM   #2
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by hafr View Post
No Correlation Between Gun Control Laws and Violent Crime Rates: http://inmalafide.com/no-correlation...t-crime-rates/
Given there are no border points between US states it is trivial to transport guns across state lines. Comparing different US states like this is ridiculous.

What you actually want to compare is different countries - it is obviously pretty hard to transport guns from the US to the UK.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 03:29 AM   #3
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Given there are no border points between US states it is trivial to transport guns across state lines. Comparing different US states like this is ridiculous.
Are you proposing it's common enough that guns are stolen or moved across state lines without it being reported to authorities that it would offset a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime into this mishmash? Do you have anything to support that claim?

Quote:
What you actually want to compare is different countries - it is obviously pretty hard to transport guns from the US to the UK.
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

What's your take on this one then?

Did you have any fact based arguments to share by the way?
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 04:09 AM   #4
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKO View Post
Perhaps these stats from UNODC might be of interest to the OP.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a.../homicide.html
Thanks. I looked through the "key findings", but couldn't find anything to support that the implementation of tougher gun laws would make society safer. Please direct me towards what I'm missing.

Quote:
Edit: You can clearly see if you look at the statistics for Australia when gun control was introduced in 1996, after the Port Arthur (Martin Bryant) Massacre in Tasmania to 2010 that there is a reduction of homicides by firearms of approximately 2/3rds or more.
But there was already a downward trend in homicides in play for years before the massacre and imposed gun laws. Also, Tasmania had the more relaxed gun laws in the country but the second lowest homicide rate until the massacre happened.

To keep the discussion on track, let's look at some facts regarding Australia and the effects of gun laws introduced after said massacre:

"Mass murders in Dunblane, United Kingdom, and Port Arthur, Australia, provoked rapid responses from the governments of both countries. Major changes to Australian laws resulted in a controversial buy-back of longarms and tighter legislation. The Australian situation enables evaluation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes. The findings have profound implications for future firearm legislation policy direction."
http://moveleft.org/dog_ban/br_j_criminology_2006_.pdf
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 05:10 AM   #5
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKO View Post
That is correct in that prior to 1996 homicide rates were on the decline perhaps to tougher laws on domestic violence laws and better police resources etc but it continued to have large peaks or spikes. Since 1996 these peaks or spikes have been levelled out. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
Neither of the graphs (number of murders and number of incidents) show any indication of spikes being levelled out after 1996 (and interestingly, fewer people were murdered in 1996 when a single incident was responsible for 10 % of the homicides, than in both 1995 and 1997). Am I missing something?
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 05:29 AM   #6
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by hafr View Post
Are you proposing it's common enough that guns are stolen or moved across state lines without it being reported to authorities that it would offset a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime into this mishmash? Do you have anything to support that claim?

According to this report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, it happens often.

Quote:
This report has four key findings:

I. In 2009, just ten states supplied nearly half – 49% – of the guns that crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes. Together, these states accounted for nearly 21,000 interstate crime guns recovered in 2009.

II. When controlling for population, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, and Georgia export crime guns at the highest rates. These states export crime guns at more than seven times the rate of the ten states with the lowest crime gun export rates.

III. The ten states that export crime guns at the highest rates also supply a greater proportion of guns that are likely to have been trafficked. Time- to-Crime (“TTC”) measures the time between a gun’s initial retail sale and its recovery in a crime – and according to ATF, a crime gun with a TTC of less than two years (a “short TTC”) is more likely to have been illegally trafficked.

IV. There is a strong association between a state’s gun laws and that state’s propensity to export crime guns. There is also a strong association between a state’s gun laws and that state’s propensity to be a source of short TTC crime guns. Ten gun laws are examined in this analysis. In each case, states that have enacted these gun laws are associated with lower crime gun export rates and a smaller proportion of crime guns with a short TTC. The ten states that supply guns at the highest rates have, on average, only 1.6 of these regulations in place, whereas in the ten states that supply interstate crime guns at the lowest rates, the average is 8.4.
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 06:13 AM   #7
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Okay. So the argument is that a single state's gun control laws are ineffective due to other state's more relaxed gun laws, and that gun laws should be federal?

I buy that. Still not really an argument that states tougher gun laws makes for a safer society though...

How about the comparison between Canada and the US?
hafr is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 06:42 AM   #8
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKO View Post
Missing the trend since 1996.
So the spikes (and dips, nota bene) of the percentage of homicides being committed with firearms have been levelled out since 1996, meaning the number of gun related homicides each year has regressed towards the mean. It's interesting, since it could be an argument that gun control plays a factor in preventing mass shootings and that massacres aren't the black swans they're made out to be (see the black swan theory).

But it's also interesting because the levelling out means the dips have disappeared. How come? Why is it more likely for a homicide to involve firearms during years with no massacres when there are tougher gun laws then it was before (in Australia)? Now, that's a head scratcher...

Do you have any theories as to why the homicide rate started falling in the 70's, and what might have caused it to continue it's course downwards?
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:05 AM   #9
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
It's nice to talk about scientific studies but what about the elephant in the room, namely that the NRA blocks gun research wherever they can? Begs the question, what are they afraid of?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...128D45BFC1DBF4
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:12 AM   #10
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
It's nice to talk about scientific studies but what about the elephant in the room, namely that the NRA blocks gun research wherever they can? Begs the question, what are they afraid of?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...128D45BFC1DBF4
So there are scientific studies to support the claim that implementing stricter gun control doesn't help make a society safer, but not the opposite, because the NRA are blocking those studies from being made? And this would be an explanation to why there is such a lack of fact based arguments for implementing stricter gun control?

Am I interpreting you correctly?
hafr is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:21 AM   #11
Andeavor
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
I think instead of banning firearms (assault or otherwise) you should rather adopt stricter rules on storing guns and ammunition. Here in Switzerland we are forced by law to store one or the other in a safe, separated in two rooms. Does that effectively stop people from grabbing a gun and (accidentally) shooting themselves or others? No, but it makes it harder (for roommates or intruders) to get just grab a gun and shoot.

The country needs an attitude adjustment regarding guns. Don't look at them as a prize or proof of freedom; they are weapons used for offense and defense, not toys to prove you're tough and powerful.
Andeavor is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:24 AM   #12
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKO View Post
But there is no doubt, not long after 1996 and the "gun buy back" the drop is more dramatic
What about the report cited earlier that claims there is no effect that surpasses the expected values?

Quote:
and the peaks/spikes on the graphs are not as before 1996.
Also the dips are less significant, it's like instead of having 350 homicides one year and 250 the next there is now 300 each year. Better, worse or the same?

Quote:
Gun Buy Backs" is not a one stop solution but you have to look at the whole picture including new laws including tighter gun laws that prevent mentally unstable people from getting hold of auto/semi weapons. I am not against firearms but better gun laws help to make a difference in keeping them less accessible to people with mental health issues as in the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. When ever I look at the statistics of the shooters association here their stats only go up until 1995 as if that is it. Good policy and careful implementation of new gun laws along with other laws and continued law enforcement resources can make a difference. I can only hope the trend keeps on falling. There are many responsible gun owners out there and I do not believe they should be penalised just for the sake of ridding all types of weapons. Each application for a firearm should be closely scrutinised. BTW there are still many so called illegal "unregistered" and smuggled weapons in Australia. Nothing is perfect.
I'm against allowing people to keep guns at home the way it's allowed in the states, because I believe the argument that a gun under the pillow makes you safer is bollocks and that you actually increase the risk of being burglarised with all that it entails, so I'm with you when it comes to certain aspects of gun control being a positive thing - for the gun owners themselves. But since the discussion is about making society safer for those not carrying guns, kids and so on, those are the factors I'm interested in, and can't seem to find solid evidence for.
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:28 AM   #13
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by hafr View Post
So there are scientific studies to support the claim that implementing stricter gun control doesn't help make a society safer, but not the opposite, because the NRA are blocking those studies from being made? And this would be an explanation to why there is such a lack of fact based arguments for implementing stricter gun control?

Am I interpreting you correctly?

Nothing to interpret. I simply made the point that the NRA tries to squash gun research wherever possible. It's one reason for the lack of recent studies, probably the biggest reason. If, as the NRA would like us to believe, that gun control doesn't reduce gun violence, then why block studies?
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:36 AM   #14
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Nothing to interpret. I simply made the point that the NRA tries to squash gun research wherever possible. It's one reason for the lack of recent studies, probably the biggest reason. If, as the NRA would like us to believe, that gun control doesn't reduce gun violence, then why block studies?
I don't know, and I'm not very interested in fallacies of distraction. Please keep to the subject: fact based arguments for gun control.
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:39 AM   #15
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Nothing to interpret. I simply made the point that the NRA tries to squash gun research wherever possible. It's one reason for the lack of recent studies, probably the biggest reason. If, as the NRA would like us to believe, that gun control doesn't reduce gun violence, then why block studies?
As I have been called out for numerous times... I'll play devil's advocate.

Where is your documented proof, your citation of factual sources, that the NRA blocks these types of studies?

Don't get me wrong... I am no supporter of the NRA. Not by a long shot (pun intended).
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:57 AM   #16
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKO View Post
There is no arguing for me regarding the trends and the latest stats from the UNODC to 2009 I posted earlier, continue to show a trend of decline that go further than the graphs I posted. I am less concerned myself for little dips and rises but I can't see the larger peaks/spikes and dips before 1996. When ever there is a huge spike in the graphs indicates some major event like in Port Arthur. For me less variation in the downward trend can only be a positive i.e less mass killings. I can accept that I may be wrong in my assumptions of the trends but I only care to see that it doesn't spike as much again like it did prior to 1996.
So a yearly homicidal rate that's stable is better than a yearly homicidal rate that fluctuates, even if it averages out to be the same?
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:08 AM   #17
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
As I have been called out for numerous times... I'll play devil's advocate.

Where is your documented proof, your citation of factual sources, that the NRA blocks these types of studies?

Don't get me wrong... I am no supporter of the NRA. Not by a long shot (pun intended).

Give me a break. It's common knowledge and the article I linked to is all the research I'm doing on this.
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:21 AM   #18
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Give me a break. It's common knowledge and the article I linked to is all the research I'm doing on this.
So in short, you have nothing to do in this discussion? Thank you.
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:25 AM   #19
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
While this study doesn't speak specifically to gun control laws, it does point to increased risks associated with firearms. It isn't a great leap to assume that if the presence of firearms increases these risks that laws that reduced the number of guns present would then lower the number of people exposed to these increased risks.

Quote:
Oxford Journals

American Journal of Epidemiology

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

Abstract

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Received for publication February 9, 2004; accepted for publication June 7, 2004.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Last edited by citizenzen; Jan 10, 2013 at 08:41 AM. Reason: Bolded headline
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:25 AM   #20
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKO View Post
To be realistic, there will always be murders and unfortunately some will occur with guns due to domestics, drugs, armed hold ups, gangs etc. I can only assume a spike in the trends could indicate a possible mass killing/s and generally in mass killings they don't differentiate between adults and children. Single targeted murders generally affect an couple of families and friends. Massacres do major damage in that it can traumatise a whole community deeply or country to the worst degree especially if semi/automatic weapons are accessed. I know which of the lesser evils I rather see in the stats.
Okay, then I understand your point of view.

Quote:
As I said earlier it has continued to trend downwards after 1996 in the number of homicides via firearms as far I as the statistics go.
Yes, but that trend started earlier and was not affected by the implementation of the gun laws. See previously quoted article about it. It contains more raw data and has better conclusions than you or I can draw from looking at these four graphs.
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:27 AM   #21
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Give me a break. It's common knowledge and the article I linked to is all the research I'm doing on this.
I'm not trying to bust you... I just find it somewhat amusing how I have been beaten on unmercifully in the past for posting something that is also common knowledge, while still hearing absurd demands for proof and documentation from several unnamed (but you know who they are ) members of this forum.

"Give me a break" never worked for me!

I guess the requirement for (ridiculous) documentation is directly linked to which side of the argument you happen to be on. Just an observation...
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:28 AM   #22
Iscariot
macrumors 68030
 
Iscariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronteazy
I'm really not interested in the debate given that homicide is at one of the lowest points in the history of both the United States and the developed world, however your selection of "facts" is poor. The Harvard Law article is using Communist controlled Soviet Russia, previously USSR-controlled Eastern European nations, cites Gary Kleck (whose telephone survey should be dismissed out of hand on it's absurdity) and claims that France's gun ownership of 5.5% of households with handguns is comparable to the level of US ownership.

I'm not trying to make a case for gun control, just pointing out that your case against it could use some better sources.
__________________
Don't feed the you-know-what.
Iscariot is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:30 AM   #23
hafr
Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
While this study doesn't speak specifically to gun control laws, it does point to increased risks associated with firearms. It isn't a great leap to assume that if the presence of firearms increases these risks that laws that reduced the number of guns present would then lower the number of people exposed to these increased risks.
(Damn those forearms )

As I said in my original post: "The only fact based argument I hear against gun ownership is that suicidal gun owners are more likely to use their guns when killing themselves than suicidal people who do not own guns, and that crimes of passion in the home more often include guns when there is a gun in the house than when there is not. These are both very good arguments against gun ownership, but it says absolutely nothing about the general security in the society or that it would stop these mass killings."
hafr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:35 AM   #24
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by hafr View Post
As I said in my original post: "The only fact based argument I hear against gun ownership is that suicidal gun owners are more likely to use their guns when killing themselves than suicidal people who do not own guns, and that crimes of passion in the home more often include guns when there is a gun in the house than when there is not. These are both very good arguments against gun ownership, but it says absolutely nothing about the general security in the society or that it would stop these mass killings."
I believe you overlook where the study finds ...
  • Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home

  • They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death

This isn't just about suicide.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 08:40 AM   #25
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
This isn't just about suicide.
But let's take a moment to look at suicide.

Excerpts from the Harvard School of Public Health ...

Quote:
Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk.

Case Control Studies

Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.

What is it about Guns?

Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They’re quick. And they’re irreversible.

About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.)

Attempters who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have some time to reconsider mid-attempt and summon help or be rescued. The method itself often fails, even in the absence of a rescue. Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005).With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-ma...s-matter/risk/
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gun Control Spam Mail. justperry Politics, Religion, Social Issues 21 Mar 9, 2013 10:56 AM
Gun control... 1080p Politics, Religion, Social Issues 8 Jan 16, 2013 12:40 PM
You are a gun control hypocrite if... glocke12 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 63 Jan 4, 2013 02:53 PM
More gun control law proposals.... PracticalMac Politics, Religion, Social Issues 81 Dec 24, 2012 01:15 PM
Fact based musings on battery life jmxp69 iPhone 0 Oct 1, 2012 03:24 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC