How Many People and Which People Should Die For Which Rights?
“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
That quote has been attributed to Joseph Stalin, though variations of it apparently have been around for a long time.
It’s a loaded quote, even putting aside that it may have been spoken by a dictator who killed millions of his own citizens.
It reflects the reality that once you move past individual stories and start aggregating death in larger numbers, we lose sight of the awfulness that violence wreaks on the individual level. This is not something restricted to dictators — most people are more swayed by individual stories. News and media and everyone base everything off of this.
The Winter Olympics are on right now — we are flooded with back stories of individual athletes — our imagination is captured by the details of one person. Team sports — to the extent we have those in the Winter Olympics — are pushed to the background. I assume we have a hockey team, but given the lack of NHL players NBC can individually highlight, all I’ve seen on NBC is a single 30 second highlight of their recent loss.
This trend is now happening to smaller and smaller numbers — individual tragedies are being swept up into statistics of a larger trend. I am of course talking about gun violence.
The Onion — Not A Laughing Matter
Families are again grieving as nearly twenty people were murdered in a school shooting in Florida. As The Onion headline repeatedly states, “‘No Way To Prevent This’, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”
Sign up to receive email notifications of posts. Follow me on X, Facebook, or Instagram for entertainment and updates of new posts. Feel free to email me with comments, questions, or to ask about site sponsorship or public speaking.
The “politicizing” of this event is happening faster than ever before — before you slam the “leftist liberals” for doing so, it’s being politicized equally on both sides.
Frankly — I am glad it is happening, because #ThoughtsAndPrayers aren’t helping. That does not mean I empathize less than others. Unlike most gun owners, I have personal experience with gun violence, despite not owning a gun.
As a pediatric emergency medicine doctor in a city with a high level of gun violence, I likely have more personal experience with victims of gun violence than those who write the laws.
I’ve had to be the doctor who told a mother her young child died from a gunshot.
I’ve seen a child’s chest cracked open in the trauma bay in a valiant, but ultimately futile attempt, by a trauma surgeon trying to save a young child who was shot in the chest.
I’ve seen a teenager struggle to breath because a bullet injured his trachea.
I’ve provided care to many young and old children who were victims of gun violence. Fortunately, most have survived (physically).
Yet the exposure to violence in my own town does not compare to the experiences of families and friends of those who lost loved ones in shootings from Newton to Parkland have experienced.
So let me implore you — let’s not debate whether guns, in their current status in our society, are making this a better or safer country.
Yes, individual gun ownership is part of the reason this country exists, and some level of firearm ownership is enshrined in our Constitution.
Both the individual stories and the statistics make it clear: while there are many gun owners who are responsible with their firearms, this country currently suffers far more harm from guns than it receives in benefits.
An individual gun owner who hunts responsibly may not feel compelled to give a gun because of a school shooting 2000 miles away, but that is somewhat irrelevant to me at the moment.
What’s The Question?
I would rather ask the question I posed in the title. Who should die for our rights? How many should die? Which rights should they die for?
When people serve in the military, we often thank them for their service and their sacrifice. Many knowingly and willingly put themselves in harm’s way.
Though not every 18-year-old is thinking of the Bill of Rights when they sign up to go to Afghanistan, ultimately that is part of their job. They do not want to die, but many of them have knowingly put themselves in a position where that may happen.
Our law enforcement officers in this country are in the same position — they are upholding and enforcing the law, and unfortunately are at risk of injury or death at times to do so.
When my 8-year old goes to school, he should not be in harm’s way or expected to die because of your rights. He did not sign up for that.
What about me? As a father and a husband, I have signed up for it. I have obligations to protect my family, even if I don’t have a badge or a gun. Some people choose to have a gun because of that obligation. Primarily because they are afraid other people with guns may abridge their own rights.
I do not have masterful combat skills that would be of any use (I’m typing this with a broken finger sustained in my old-man rec soccer league), yet I can envision many instances where I would put myself in harm’s way for another, even beyond protecting my own family.
Ultimately, I am willing to die to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am not signing up for it, but it’s the most valuable right we have.
But would I would be willing to die to protect the 20th Amendment? It changes the date the terms of President/VP/Congress begin and end.
Or the 23rd? It gives the District of Columbia a stake in the Electoral College.
No — I probably won’t march in the streets or stand in front of a gunman for either of those. The right for women to vote is only a few lines away. Clearly not all rights are of equal value, not all are held in the same esteem, and all have the potential to be abridged.
We’ve long reached the point where the number of gun deaths is a statistic that people gloss over — we’ve had more school shootings this year than the rest of the world combined.
Elements of our society and government have chosen to prioritize certain rights over others. In doing so, they’ve chosen to make martyrs of our children and many others.
I am willing to die for many things, but I am not willing to die, or let my children die, for this.
As a country it seems like we have almost accepted gun violence as a status quo. Like, oh there is another school shooting. It is quite brutal and makes no sense to me. I only hope that we find a solution that we can agree on in the near future.
I suspect change is coming even if it’s 20 years away. There is a generation growing up with this from ALL settings that I do not think will tolerate this when they are governing
The lunacy associated with this issue is mind-boggling, particularly given the stakes. The debate, if you can call it that, is already shifting to mental illness, “kids these days”, etc. I don’t know that the 2nd amendment has ever protected us from some dark authoritarian regime taking over the country, but we have had countless innocents killed by guns. Thank you for your thoughts and first-hand views – we need more of that if we’ll ever break this cycle.
Mental illness drives a lot of violence. It is not the primary culprit. We need better mental healthcare in this country, but not because of gun violence. We need it because people need it. Period.
This! “I am willing to die for many things, but I am not willing to die, or let my children die, for this.”
Interesting to hear your perspective from a person that literally has to put the pieces back together of a child that has been torn apart by a gun. Thank you for doing what you do, though I wish that part was eliminated from your job duties.
Thank you. I should say I think it’s the trauma surgeons who do the serious life saving. Change is coming eventually — I have hope for that, even if it feels hopeless at time s
Do you think not having a gun, would have changed the scenario? It may have resulted in less deaths at one time, but this was one disturbed person. If he didn’t have access to a gun, he would have found another way to commit either multiple murders over a longer period of time or another method of mass murder.
For the record, I don’t have a gun. I grow around them, but never had a reason to purchase my own. My wife had a bad experience as a child, so we just don’t have them at this time.
You said you wouldn’t die for this right. It wasn’t clear which rights you would die for. Our rights are sort of a total package.
If you look at this case and many others, there were warning signs that pretty much everyone ignored. This and most other tragedies in fact could have been stopped, but we have a broken system.
I’ve coached youth soccer and high school soccer. You know what comes up far too often? Bullying. Bullying that has gone on for year after year after year. And school just continue to pay lip service to it.
And when you refuse to confront problems you tell people they don’t matter. If their life doesn’t matter than why would the person’s life next to them matter? And guess what happens?
Guns aren’t the problem. They have never been the problem. We are the problem.
I agree that we are the problem. Just like in healthcare, people sometimes are the problem. The solution is you design systems that keep people safe.
And yes — if he had a knife and not a gun, far fewer people would’ve died. That’s a pretty big deal when you are talking about life or dearth and families being ripped apart.
Sure this single case was “predictable,” but many are not. And they can only be stopped easily if we have a system that makes it a LOT harder to get a gun, because we can’t hospitalize or arrest every angry person.
What would I die for? I will die for the right for my kids to live free. I will not put one iota of effort into supporting the current use of guns in this country. I will not march in the streets or donate to the NRA or Congressman that support it. I will not teach my children that the right to bear arms is sacred the wee freedom of speech or religion or even voting is to me.
Important question you ask here RD. I fortunately do not have experience with gun violence. Although my endocrinologists family was killed in a horrific home invasion (just look for Dr. Petit), despite living in a “safe” neighborhood. And I live in CT, so Newtown hit very close to home. It’s only 45 minutes away and I’ve driven through it many times. I am also not willing to have my children die to protect the right to bear arms, particularly assault rifles by the mentally ill. Something must be done. I’m glad one of my senators is the voice in Washington against gun violence. Another sad legacy of Newtown
I know people are disheartened by the lack of progress. Like many things, such as gender and race equality, it may take generations growing up suffering from it to effect change.
I’m with you, Rogue Dad. The right to bear arms should not translate to the refusal to govern responsibly and definitely does not mean that we should not have reasonable gun control.
Two of the most exhausting points I keep seeing are “he wanted to kill so he would have found a way” and “mental illness.”
The vast majority of people with mental illness don’t commit violence. And even if that were a valid argument, this country keeps limiting access to mental healthcare. If we think it’s about mental illness (it’s not) than DO something about the healthcare available. The lack of logic here is something else.
If it’s not mental illness (and it isn’t) then do something about what’s being used to casually and recklessly murder people. If someone has to work a heck of a lot harder to figure out how murder people in droves than to go out and buy some guns and ammunition, then that’s a GOOD thing. Making it impossible isn’t a feasible goal but refusing to do anything at all is abominable on par with the shooters who are enabled by those attitudes.
By no means do I hate guns. I’m not currently a gun owner but I grew up with guns, my relatives own guns (LEO and military), and we have plenty of experience with guns. In no way do I think that the fact that we can’t stop all murders ever is a good enough reason not to stop the ones that we can by limiting access to AKs. There’s absolutely no reason we shouldn’t do the best we can to enact intelligent gun control laws. There’s a vast difference between gun control and gun bans, and maybe the latter isn’t going to happen in American culture, but let us not be so willfully foolish that we refuse to even try the former.
People are the problem? Then enact laws making it harder for them to get their hands on ways to easily mow down their fellow citizens. That’s how we confront the problem here.
It’s long past time to do something real about this instead of wringing our hands and wondering what can be done. It’s more than time that we do the thing that no one has been willing to do after all these deaths.
I come from a country that went through 3 big wars in the last century. Last one (and the only one I lived through) could be classified as a civil war (though not everyone would agree) and the side I ended up being on was not the one that had the control over military. Having access to firearms and being able to keep them at home meant that at least you could attempt to protect yourself when aggressor came and maybe die in a fire instead of being captured, raped and tortured before being killed afterwards. Having multiple people in the same area with access to firearms meant that they could organize and fight back.
It is easy to dismiss those scenarios and say that they don’t apply here in a country that haven’t seen a war (on their own territory) in I don’t know for how long, but it doesn’t make them less real. You only need to foster a right type of strong emotions (like fear, hate, rage and anger) in people, then add the right spark (just think about last elections) and you have a recipe for a war. I wouldn’t believe it if I hadn’t seen it. Portray your enemy like an inhuman beast hurting the weakest and you’ll be surprised how many people will be lining up to fight and do bad things they never imagined they were capable of.
I personally feel safer in a country where people are allowed to carry a gun even though I might not carry it myself. I believe bad people will find a way around a law . There were laws against consuming alcohol and did they stop people from drinking? There are laws against drugs and has that stopped drug problem? I feel that if we put laws against buying firearms, it will only grow black market and increase proportion of armed “bad people” (bad as in those willing to break a law) against armed “good people” (those not willing to break a law).
Just my 5c. I tend to agree with some opinions stated above that the real problem behind mass shootings is more about lack of managing mental illnesses than firearms itself.