In 19991, I started my professional career as a software tester at Microsoft.  I began as a Software Test Engineer and then transitioned to a Software Design Engineer in Test.  I also spent time as a Developer and Data Engineer, but I spent the vast majority of my time as a software tester.  The oversimplification is that I verify ‘correct’ behavior.  In my case, documentation and common sense define ‘correctness’.  If the documentation defies common sense, I may push back to change the definition of ‘correctness’.

Occasionally, there are conflicting corner cases. For instance, children can ride in Space Mountain, but only if they’re at least a certain height. That’s just one rule. However, determining which rules apply under which conditions can be complex. There are safety and compliance standards (accessibility, for instance) that we may choose to adhere to.

However, there are conflicting rules even in our government.  In fact, there are even some conflicting principles in our Constitution.

Conflicts in our Constitution

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, among other rights, such as freedom of religion.  There are naturally restrictions to freedom of speech.  The First Amendment stipulates that the government may not impinge upon your freedom of speech.  This doesn’t apply to Facebook or Twitter removing your post because they decide that it violates their standards.  Anyone who cries First Amendment violations because a private platform censors your post is misinformed.

The First Amendment generally allows us to say whatever we want.  However, having the freedom to say what you want does not imply freedom from consequences.  We established laws against defamation and slander.  Killers often find their targets (like public figures or doctors who perform abortions) because their targets’ personal information has been leaked.  This practice, called doxxing, is not universally illegal.  The interesting point is when the person sharing the information intends to cause fear, harassment, or harm.

Our government aspires to do the most good for the most people.  How do we resolve the instances where one person’s rights and freedoms impinge upon another person’s rights and freedoms?  Does one person’s right to freedom of speech outweigh a person’s right to safety?  This particular debate is scoped to just freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

As it happens, US citizens have a right to bodily autonomy.  The government cannot force you to undergo a medical procedure.  Law enforcement cannot compel you to take a breathalizer test without your consent.  Even after death, we can’t simply harvest the organs from your dead body, even if that will potentially save a life.  You must have indicated that you consent to organ donation, or your family must agree.

The limits to bodily autonomy

Currently, the biggest challenge to our right to bodily autonomy affects only about half of our population.  The instrumental question then becomes: does the government have a right to deny a woman the right to get an abortion?  Here’s the conflict: On the one hand, the right to bodily autonomy asserts that the government may not dictate what you can do with your body.  On the other hand, some will argue that denying access to abortion implicitly preserves the life of the unborn child.

I personally land on a woman’s right to body autonomy having higher precedence.  Or actually, my position is more nuanced than this.  I believe that, being a man, my opinion on this issue should not count.  However, since I do vote on this issue, I will cast my vote the way women, in general, would.  I cast my vote to preserve a woman’s right to choose.  Having men draft legislation around abortion is like having women design urinals.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the preservation of life is the most noble endeavor in which our government participates.  Therefore, any effort to preserve life implicitly overrides any other right or freedom that we would otherwise implicitly have, like bodily autonomy.  Let’s play that game.

Enumerating preventable deaths

Conservatives maintain that a pregnancy is a human life that deserves the right to live, and thus abortions are preventable deaths.  I don’t necessarily agree, but let’s run with it.  That said, we can agree that all (already born) citizens have a right to live, and thus any effort to prevent their deaths is noble.  As such, any effort in this front to preserve their life implicitly overrides any other right or freedom that we would otherwise implicitly have, like the right to bear arms.

I do not suggest repealing the Second Amendment altogether.  However, I will point out one particular corner case:

The new report, Gun Violence in the United States 2023: Examining the Gun Suicide Epidemic, finds that guns were involved in 46,728 deaths in the U.S. in 2023—or one death every 11 minutes. For the third straight year, gun suicides reached a new high: 27,300, or 58% of all gun deaths, were suicides.

I assume that there hasn’t been a significant change in trajectory since 2023.  As such, the United States allows ~27,000 citizens to die each year by gun suicide.  Let’s wrap our heads around that; gun suicides outnumber all other forms of gun deaths.  Most gun deaths are suicides, and it’s not even close.  The numbers don’t lie.

Every single one of those ~27,000 deaths is preventable.  We can do better.

I suggest we screen all gun owners for thoughts of self-harm to prevent gun suicides; this effectively means that all gun owners are perpetually in some, at least mild, form of therapy.

For reference, I have friends who struggle with thoughts of self-harm and own a firearm, and I have verified that they do not currently have access to that firearm.  To me, this is personal.

“Oh, I didn’t mean that right…”

Conservatives will readily trample over our rights to bodily autonomy in the guise of preservation of life.  However, they’ll turn around and speak of our Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and describe it as absolutely sacrosanct.  Dare I ask why?  Yes, the right to bear arms is written into our Constitution; no debate.  However, these rights are also written into our Constitution:

• Freedom of speech.
• Freedom of religion; this includes the freedom not to practice religion.
• Bodily autonomy.
• Birthright citizenship.
• Right to vote; the only restrictions are citizenship and age (18 years).
• Due process.

If you believe that preservation of life is a permissible reason to suspend some of the above rights (like bodily autonomy), then you must similarly conclude that the right to bear arms may be suspended.

Charlie Kirk ironically asserted that the cost of some gun deaths per year is acceptable to maintain our Second Amendment rights.  May we make the same assertion about abortions and women’s right to bodily autonomy?  If there is a number, what is that number?

Otherwise, please articulate a reason, other than hypocrisy (or misogyny), that makes the right to bear arms so Star-Spangled Awesome that we’re unwilling to touch it.  Are we really willing to sacrifice the lives of ~27,000 citizens each year on the altar of the Second Amendment and gun rights?