Trust the experts at the CDC
"In Fauci I trust"
Believe in science
The vaccines are safe and effective

We have been preaching these for months. Yet when these same people tell us we can trust the vaccine and remove the mask we recoil. Why?

'The CDC has been wrong before', 'it's political', 'we don't have enough data'- all these and more are excuses used by anti-mask folk and we have ridiculed them for it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we certainly can say one of those excuses is why we will keep wearing a mask. We have traveled a very different road but we have arrived at the same conclusion- we don't fully trust the "experts". We can wear the mask but we are tracking a certain amount of hypocrisy across the carpet by using the same excuses.

Or is it less complicated and based on our primary senses? Nearly all of us have no way to test our blood. We cannot measure what level of antibodies we have or how they fight various strains of the virus. A mask on the other hand is a physical object. We can see it, feel it and can put it on at anytime we feel the need knowing it is doing what it does.

Are masks simply our security blanket? That it is easier to believe in something we can touch than something we must believe to be true?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/04/business/gun-sales-april-illinois/index.html

https://kstp.com/news/looking-back-at-the-legacy-of-operation-safety-net/6091148/?cat=1

Intriguing question- was the relative peacefulness in the metro because of or in spite of Operation Safety Net?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/tech/nijeer-parks-facial-recognition-police-arrest/index.html

Support for this technology has ebbed and flowed here.

https://www.fox9.com/news/3-day-george-floyd-commemoration-to-feature-rally-day-of-action-and-celebration

List of daily plan at link

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/26/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment-case/index.html

https://www.wkbn.com/news/ohio/cleveland-connection-in-deadly-police-shooting-of-teen-in-columbus-i-team/

It is often brought up that it should be mandatory gun owners have insurance. Usually from the perspective that this would be a backdoor ban or at least only limit ownership to those of means. Although such a mandate probably would not survive a challenge in courts, there are certain cases where it could be upheld, such as having a carry permit- using a gun beyond simple ownership.

I decided to look into how it is handled now based on my own actual insurance policies.Since insurance laws do vary from state to state my experience may not be applicable to someone in another state or with a different company.

Under my homeowner's policy guns are considered a high value item and so have a upper limit the same as jewellery, furs or silverware. In my case it is $2500Against loss by theft or fire. I can purchase either a higher limit and/or broader coverage for a very reasonable amount.

What most people are interested in is liability insurance, that which would pay someone harmed by my actions.The policy comes with a $100,000 coverage standard and I have increased that to $500,000 at the great cost of $4 per year. In addition I have a one million dollar umbrella policy which covers myself, all members of my household for any liability resulting from action including auto accidents. So altogether I have one and a 1/2 million dollars coverage for the cost of about $10.50 a month.

So now the question is would it cover me if I shot someone on purpose or by accident? Reading the policy, and I recommend everyone read their insurance policies it's not that difficult, under exclusions it says intentional acts are excluded. Therefore if I intentionally try to harm someone these policies provide no coverage. However it does go on to say this exclusion does not apply in the case of REASONABLE USE OF FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE, it is capitalised in the policy. So to sum up if I were to commit a crime, an intentional act, I would not be covered. If I shot at someone in self defence I would be, even if I hit a different person because that would be considered accidental. I did not hit the person I was aiming at.

The insurance company also does not care what kind of gun or how many i may have. Unless I have a collection worth over $2500, then they are happy to sell me extra coverage.

All this is to show an insurance mandate would only affect the poorest, those unable to spend an extra $10 per month. It also would not help anyone who is a victim of an intentional crime as a claim would be denied.

Per Snopes, police have shot and killed 984 people since April 2020. That is about 2.7 per day. Most of these don't make national news but many are now recorded so we can view what happened.

Three cases I have seen recently

-a boy being chased on foot for possibly shooting at cars. He tosses a gun and turns to show open hands. In less than a second he is shot once and killed.

-a female vet is entering through a window unarmed. Multiple cops are inside. Before even getting inside she is shot once and killed.

-police are called to a possible abuse/fight situation. There is a chaotic altercation. One girl with a knife tries to slash another girl then presses a third against a car and tries to stab her. She is shot four times and dies.

In none of these cases did police try to use less lethal weapons or de- escalation tactics. However in each case events were happening quickly.

Should any of these people be dead or should other attempts been made to subdue the victims?

https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/april-19/