The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[Cecilie1200]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

Joe B.


Right there is the fuking "fact" you gun nuts don't want to talk about.

That's because it's not a "fact" at all. It's a deliberate misinterpretation of data.

The Kellerman study of 1986, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which produced your number, was badly flawed in methodology, and has been debunked many times, most famously by Florida State University professor Gary Kleck.

First of all, Kellerman simply took the gun deaths in King County, Washington, added them up, and said, "Look, 43 non-self defense gun deaths for every one gun death in self-defense". That's utterly ridiculous. If you do the same thing for non-gun deaths, you get a ratio of 99 to 1. By your logic, and Kellerman's, what does that tell us?

By the logic of sane people, it tells us nothing, and neither does the gun death ratio.

Guns are most often used in self-defense WITHOUT anyone being killed, and in fact without the gun even being discharged. But we never hear you anti-gun nuts citing THAT ratio, which actually tells us something useful. Why is that?

Furthermore, the vast majority of deaths in BOTH numbers, gun and non-gun, come from suicides. That means that guns are only "responsible" for those deaths if the presence of the gun is what made the person decide to kill himself. By the same token, that would mean the presence of prescription medication in the house ALSO makes people kill themselves, and should therefore be prohibited.

Japan has already been mentioned, and it should be pointed out that, while they have much more restrictive gun bans than we do, they have a HIGHER suicide rate than we do. Clearly, gun bans do nothing to prohibit suicide.

If you take out the suicides, you have a ratio of about 2.39 to 1 on gun deaths in the home. Of that number, the "accidental" deaths have been shown by other studies to be likely to occur even without a gun, because the person in question was involved in other reckless or dangerous behavior at the time, such as drinking. Do you think a person who drinks heavily and then handles a gun might also be likely to drink heavily and then get behind the wheel of a car? Or pass out and drown in the bathtub, as Whitney Houston did under the influence of alcohol and drugs?

You probably don't get the point, but I'll bet everyone else does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

pretty good argument except for the ridiculous bolded part.

Why would a gun maker be liable for what an entirely different entity chose to do with one of their products? Prove their intent.

There is no simple solution and people on both sides who scream that their "side" is entirely right and the other "side" is entirely wrong just need to shut up.

The fact is 99% of gun owners will NEVER need to use a gun for self defense of any sort, so those who claim they feel safer with them are just being silly.

By the same token, I don't owe anyone an explanation for why I own guns. I like guns, they're fun to shoot, and make a good investment.

I have no idea why gun owners go crazy with all these stretches as reasons they own guns. I own them because I can, period.

Now, what say we actually concentrate on getting guns out of the hands of people who ought not have guns in their hands?

And anyone who says that no one should be prevented from owning a gun is nuts.

A good first step is prosecuting that girl who bought a gun for the felon who shot those firemen as an accomplice to murder.

A great second step would be to outlaw private sales. Again, anyone who thinks anyone ought be able to buy a gun without a background check can be dismissed as a fool.

Is there anything we can come together on as a people any more?

Criminals do not get background checks when they steal or illegally buy a gun now.
NO law changes that as LAWS now on the books for that.
And how are they working to date?
And how many deaths are saved because the criminals KNOW someone owns or has a gun on them?
You conveniently left that figure in the tens of thousands out.
Owning weapons for self defense saves more innocent lives than criminals kill with illegally owned guns or illegally obtained guns.

You know. I own 57 firearms. Two of which are fully automatic . And frankly b ecause of idiots like you who refuse to acknowledge that the second amendment was never meant as a free for all and that there is nothing wrong with a little intelligent gun control I find myself caring less and less about the right to bear arms.

You and your ilk are as stupid as the ban everything crowd. Thats a fact.

I think the problem is the definition of intelligent gun control.

If your definition includes banning weapons because of the way they look it is not intelligent. If your definition includes telling law abiding citizens that they have to surrender something they legally purchased then it is not intelligent. If your definition includes demanding that people pay for the privilege of owning a weapon it is not intelligent.

What, exactly, do you consider intelligent gun control?

 

[Ernie S.]

Criminals do not get background checks when they steal or illegally buy a gun now.
NO law changes that as LAWS now on the books for that.
And how are they working to date?

Laws that aren't enforced are meaningless... I used to live in a town where prostitution was "illegal", but you had brothels and streetwalkers operating right in the open. Laws are only half the equation - enforcement is the other hald.

And how many deaths are saved because the criminals KNOW someone owns or has a gun on them?
You conveniently left that figure in the tens of thousands out.

Probably because it's nowhere near that. Most criminals break in when they think no one is home. The few times there are confrontations, it's because the bad guy got it wrong.

The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder.

Owning weapons for self defense saves more innocent lives than criminals kill with illegally owned guns or illegally obtained guns.

Then why is it that countries without guns- such as Japan, Germany (which lost most of its guns after WWII and Ike banned them, not Hitler) the UK have less murder, less crime...

Of course, teh fact they don't allow the obscene level of wealth inequality we have probably helps, too.

They have very few Mormons there too. Maybe you should go there to live.

 

[Unkotare]

Criminals do not get background checks when they steal or illegally buy a gun now.
NO law changes that as LAWS now on the books for that.
And how are they working to date?

Laws that aren't enforced are meaningless... I used to live in a town where prostitution was "illegal", but you had brothels and streetwalkers operating right in the open. Laws are only half the equation - enforcement is the other hald.




Probably because it's nowhere near that. Most criminals break in when they think no one is home. The few times there are confrontations, it's because the bad guy got it wrong.

The fact is, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder.

Owning weapons for self defense saves more innocent lives than criminals kill with illegally owned guns or illegally obtained guns.

Then why is it that countries without guns- such as Japan, Germany (which lost most of its guns after WWII and Ike banned them, not Hitler) the UK have less murder, less crime...

Of course, teh fact they don't allow the obscene level of wealth inequality we have probably helps, too.

They have very few Mormons there too. Maybe you should go there to live.

Actually, there are more Mormons in Japan than you might think. Doing their missionary thing and all that.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

So, I guess then that we should hold all you injun's liable for all the arrows and spears you manufactured back in the day and pumped into our Cavalry and innocent women and children, eh, Tonto?

 

[jtpr312]

Yes, there are...

And none of them are as efficient as a gun...

Not according to the Nazis.
Gas chambers were much more efficient.
You take your freedom and rights for granted.
Fine with me but keep your BS ideas to YOURSELF.

You know what, guy, I don't define living in fear that some crazy fuck with an automatic weapon is going to shoot up a mall I might be shopping at as being free. Lol. So you being afraid to go to the mall means we should not be allowed our God given right to defend ourselves? Here's some words from one of the greatest men in American history, Ben Franklin, they may explain what we think of you and those cowards like you, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Now, besides going full Godwin (a sign of a losing argument- Germans had the right to own weapons) ... Lol. More bs from one of the biggest bs'ers on the board. Here's the facts slick. Godwin's law is not a law, it is some dude's opinion and is irelevent when Nazism, Nazis or Hitler are useful and realistic examples to use in a debate. Secondly, your idea that Germans where allowed to own weapons is rather simplistic to say the least. SOME Germans where allowed to own weapons, much like the Socialist Democrats here believe. You know like Shumer in NY and Fienstien in CA, both of whom are leadind the charge to take away our guns, while both have weapons permits of their own. This is Hitler's view on gun ownership,
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

Sounds a lot like the Socialist Democrats of this nation huh? It's ok for us, but whoa, we can't let "them" have guns.

A Gun Control Law Passed by the German Government One Day After Kristallnacht

1573
Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:
§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick


The fact is, most average citizens don't need guns. BUt you have an industry that is very good at peddling fear and making us all less safe. Yup, that industry would be the media, that reports daily on the thousands of home invasions, murders, car jackings, rapes and assaults that the ARMED criminals carry out every day in this nation.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy. Lol, Sorry dude, the kellerman study where you got this made up number has been debunkied and discredited long ago, and 86% of those in your 43% where suicides and when a person is intent of killing themselves, they will use pills, a rope, poison or whatever else they can find to do the job, so your little 43% number is bs. Try reading the Lott (University of Chicago) study to get more accurate statistical information. Furthermore, your little number never takes into account the amount of times a gun is used to defend the home and the bad guy is either just wounded, held at gun point until the Police arrive or chased off after being confronted with an armed home owner, in other owrds, where the firearm in the home DID protect, it just did not kill.

I've known enough people who had to bury a spouse or child because they killed themselves with a gun they bought to protect their family. You're full of crap.
Enough of this madness.

Simple enough solution. Make the gun sellers liable for those deaths, and see how "devoted" they are to the second amendment when they are losing money. Liberal Fascism at it's best. Don't hold the scumbag responsible for their own actions, look somewhere else to place the blame. The scumbag wouldn't be a scumbag if the honest business owner never sold them a gun.

If Hobby Lobby is willing to lose money on principle, why not Bushmaster? Neither should, nor should they have to. Much better for us to defend what our Founder's gave their lives, fortunes and liberty to attain.

.

 

[jtpr312]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

Joe B.


Right there is the fuking "fact" you gun nuts don't want to talk about.

That's because it's not a fact dumbass. Kellerman's study, which this is taken from, has been debunked and discredited years ago. Try looking at Lott's study, University of Chicago, to get REAL look at this number and the rest of the nonsense this moron spoon feeds leftist morons like you who never care what they take in and regurgitate as "fact". Of the 45x's number you have here, 86% are suicides, and with or without a gun, a person intent on killing themselves will do so using pills, poison or whatever else they can. This "study" also never takes into account the millions of times a firearm is used in the home to PREVENT a crime or a potential killing when the armed homeowmer does not kill the bad guy but wounds him, holds him at gun point until the police arrive or chases the bad guy away before anyone is killed or robbed. See we usually don't talk about this "fact", because we don't see any reason to argue with a moron stupid enough to call this nonsense a "fact" without first looking to see if it's factual or truthful. We, inteligent firearms owners, know the waste of time it is to argue with people dumb enough to believe whatever some other moron tells them is a fact.

 

[JoeB131]

[





My gosh but you are one ignorant SOB. I don't normally use wiki but in this case it is actually accurate. Unlike you!


The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5] Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[7]

Gun politics in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It sounds like the Wiki Article re-inforces my point. Germans could legally own guns, and the ownership requirements for GERMANS actually losened up under the Nazis. I mean, it probably sucked for the Jews, but that was probably the least of their problems.

 

[JoeB131]

[
That's because it's not a fact dumbass. Kellerman's study, which this is taken from, has been debunked and discredited years ago. Try looking at Lott's study, University of Chicago, to get REAL look at this number and the rest of the nonsense this moron spoon feeds leftist morons like you who never care what they take in and regurgitate as "fact". Of the 45x's number you have here, 86% are suicides, and with or without a gun, a person intent on killing themselves will do so using pills, poison or whatever else they can. This "study" also never takes into account the millions of times a firearm is used in the home to PREVENT a crime or a potential killing when the armed homeowmer does not kill the bad guy but wounds him, holds him at gun point until the police arrive or chases the bad guy away before anyone is killed or robbed. See we usually don't talk about this "fact", because we don't see any reason to argue with a moron stupid enough to call this nonsense a "fact" without first looking to see if it's factual or truthful. We, inteligent firearms owners, know the waste of time it is to argue with people dumb enough to believe whatever some other moron tells them is a fact.

The CDC doesn't accept Lott's Study. It accepts Kellerman's study. Kellerman's study has been replicated in other cities and the same results were found.

Lott has all the credibility of those "Scientists" who deny Global Warming or said that Cigarettes don't cause cancer. You just have to look at who was paying his freight.

A gun in the home is far more likely to kill a member of the family.

And frankly, having known more than a few parents who buried a loved one who killed himself with that gun they bought for home protection, you realize just how retarded the gun nuts arguments are...

 

[JoeB131]

[ Liberal Fascism at it's best. Don't hold the scumbag responsible for their own actions, look somewhere else to place the blame. The scumbag wouldn't be a scumbag if the honest business owner never sold them a gun.

If Hobby Lobby is willing to lose money on principle, why not Bushmaster? Neither should, nor should they have to. Much better for us to defend what our Founder's gave their lives, fortunes and liberty to attain.

.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, the Founders were a bunch of slave-raping assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes... Showing this country was pretty much dysfunctional from the get-go.

Oh, the scumbag will still be a scumbag. Or maybe just a poor person who wants to eat. But if he can't get a gun, he won't be that dangerous.

Of course, most gun deaths are suicides and domestic arguments, where that gun bought to protect the family destroys it... Again, the Gun Industry sells fear, not freedom.

Take out their money motive, you'll be AMAZED how fast they become good corporate citizens.

 

[JoeB131]

Manufacturers are only liable if they manufacture defective items. ...?

That's simply not true. The Cigarette companies were held liable because of how they aggressively marketted their products towards children.

We can do the same to the Gun Companies. They entirely based their argument that you need that gun to keep you safe from bad guys, when they increase the danger.

When Nancy Lanza bought those guns, she probably had no idea her own son would kill her with one of them. She was just some scared Suburban Mom who bought into the gun manufacturers' propaganda about the hoard of bad guys out there ready to rape her.

When in fact, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Actually, there are more Mormons in Japan than you might think. Doing their missionary thing and all that.

So that's how you got hooked into the cult, eh?

 

[martybegan]

[
That's because it's not a fact dumbass. Kellerman's study, which this is taken from, has been debunked and discredited years ago. Try looking at Lott's study, University of Chicago, to get REAL look at this number and the rest of the nonsense this moron spoon feeds leftist morons like you who never care what they take in and regurgitate as "fact". Of the 45x's number you have here, 86% are suicides, and with or without a gun, a person intent on killing themselves will do so using pills, poison or whatever else they can. This "study" also never takes into account the millions of times a firearm is used in the home to PREVENT a crime or a potential killing when the armed homeowmer does not kill the bad guy but wounds him, holds him at gun point until the police arrive or chases the bad guy away before anyone is killed or robbed. See we usually don't talk about this "fact", because we don't see any reason to argue with a moron stupid enough to call this nonsense a "fact" without first looking to see if it's factual or truthful. We, inteligent firearms owners, know the waste of time it is to argue with people dumb enough to believe whatever some other moron tells them is a fact.

The CDC doesn't accept Lott's Study. It accepts Kellerman's study. Kellerman's study has been replicated in other cities and the same results were found.

Lott has all the credibility of those "Scientists" who deny Global Warming or said that Cigarettes don't cause cancer. You just have to look at who was paying his freight.

A gun in the home is far more likely to kill a member of the family.

And frankly, having known more than a few parents who buried a loved one who killed himself with that gun they bought for home protection, you realize just how retarded the gun nuts arguments are...

The CDC adapted a study that fits with its agenda? Color me shocked.

The kellerman study is bullshit, but keep quoting it, it makes your case even weaker that it already is.

 

[beretta304]

Manufacturers are only liable if they manufacture defective items. ...?

That's simply not true. The Cigarette companies were held liable because of how they aggressively marketted their products towards children.

We can do the same to the Gun Companies. They entirely based their argument that you need that gun to keep you safe from bad guys, when they increase the danger.

When Nancy Lanza bought those guns, she probably had no idea her own son would kill her with one of them. She was just some scared Suburban Mom who bought into the gun manufacturers' propaganda about the hoard of bad guys out there ready to rape her.

When in fact, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

Try again...page 6 and footnote 2.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gun_facts.pdf

 

[JoeB131]

[

The CDC adapted a study that fits with its agenda? Color me shocked.

The kellerman study is bullshit, but keep quoting it, it makes your case even weaker that it already is.

The CDC has an agenda? YOu mean other than identifying health hazards to Americans?

We have 30,000 gun deaths in this country every year... most of them suicides and domestic arguments.... I'd say the CDC might have a valid concern.

The only reason why the Kellerman study is "bullshit" is it tells a story you don't like.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Try again..page 6 and footnote 2.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gun_facts.pdf

Gun Nut websites I don't even bother clicking on.

Kellerman's study has been validated by the CDC and it's just fucking common sense.

I've never known anyone who killed a bad guy in self defense.

I've known a few people who've killed themselves with that gun someone brought into the house for "protection". In fact, it happened to a guy who lived next door to me.

 

[beretta304]

[

Try again..page 6 and footnote 2.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gun_facts.pdf

Gun Nut websites I don't even bother clicking on.

Kellerman's study has been validated by the CDC and it's just fucking common sense.

I've never known anyone who killed a bad guy in self defense.

I've known a few people who've killed themselves with that gun someone brought into the house for "protection". In fact, it happened to a guy who lived next door to me.

I know. You're brighter, better and smarter than everyone and every study. A walking encyclopedia.

You're also a jackass with that reply.

If one wants to kill himself with a gun, he or she will obtain one and do it.

Convenience didn't make them kill themselves...mental illness did.

Your story is highly suspect anyway.

Want me to make one up?

 

[martybegan]

[

The CDC adapted a study that fits with its agenda? Color me shocked.

The kellerman study is bullshit, but keep quoting it, it makes your case even weaker that it already is.

The CDC has an agenda? YOu mean other than identifying health hazards to Americans?

We have 30,000 gun deaths in this country every year... most of them suicides and domestic arguments.... I'd say the CDC might have a valid concern.

The only reason why the Kellerman study is "bullshit" is it tells a story you don't like.

The reason is its methodology is crap. It does not isolate cases where the gun used was actually a law abiding homeowners weapon that was used in the commission of homicide against someone in the household vs. killing an intruder. This, by the way is what the statement "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill someone in your family/you know than an armed intruder. " Instead he took ALL gun deaths in a given area, whether the guns were legal or not, and placed them against cases where an armed intruder was killed.

So the data set is ALL weapons, not the subset of weapons owned by law abiding citizens and used inside ones home.

As an Engineer, I look at that data set vs. the statement made, and call "bullshit." It would be like including housecat scratches in a data set looking at tiger attacks.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Try again..page 6 and footnote 2.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gun_facts.pdf

Gun Nut websites I don't even bother clicking on.

Kellerman's study has been validated by the CDC and it's just fucking common sense.

I've never known anyone who killed a bad guy in self defense.

I've known a few people who've killed themselves with that gun someone brought into the house for "protection". In fact, it happened to a guy who lived next door to me.

I know. You're brighter, better and smarter than everyone and every study. A walking encyclopedia.

You're also a jackass with that reply.

If one wants to kill himself with a gun, he or she will obtain one and do it.

Convenience didn't make them kill themselves...mental illness did.

Your story is highly suspect anyway.

Want me to make one up?

I've told this story a bunch of times... stamping your feet and saying "It ain't true" makes you feel better, knock yourself the fuck out.

The thing is, I know of two people in my life who buried family members because that gun they bought for protection was used in a sucide. (The other case was a co-worker whose teenage son shot himself. Not surprising, the marriage broke up soon after that.)

But please, stamp your feet and say, "Suicides don't count... because.. well, they just don't!" I know it makes you feel better that you are a dupe of an industry selling a dangerous product to unstable people.

 

[beretta304]

Gun Nut websites I don't even bother clicking on.

Kellerman's study has been validated by the CDC and it's just fucking common sense.

I've never known anyone who killed a bad guy in self defense.

I've known a few people who've killed themselves with that gun someone brought into the house for "protection". In fact, it happened to a guy who lived next door to me.

I know. You're brighter, better and smarter than everyone and every study. A walking encyclopedia.

You're also a jackass with that reply.

If one wants to kill himself with a gun, he or she will obtain one and do it.

Convenience didn't make them kill themselves...mental illness did.

Your story is highly suspect anyway.

Want me to make one up?

I've told this story a bunch of times... stamping your feet and saying "It ain't true" makes you feel better, knock yourself the fuck out.

The thing is, I know of two people in my life who buried family members because that gun they bought for protection was used in a sucide. (The other case was a co-worker whose teenage son shot himself. Not surprising, the marriage broke up soon after that.)

But please, stamp your feet and say, "Suicides don't count... because.. well, they just don't!" I know it makes you feel better that you are a dupe of an industry selling a dangerous product to unstable people.

Well than you're the exception to the rule or plain unlucky. Either way, still likely full of shit.


Tell us how the seller knows the buyer is unstable. See what a dope you are with that last part of your reply.

Goodbye, Joey. Not wasting another day with someone who can never concede that he doesn't know everything.

Next time you need a cop tell him to leave his gun at the station. He may be unstable and turn it on you.