Preferably not all at the same time

It doesn’t have to be tragic…

If it's in your power to prevent people from dying tragically in a burning building- you wouldn't?

Basic economics: The optimal number of people who die tragically in a burning building is not zero. Every person trades off some amount of safety for cost, that’s just part of living. It’s possible that this particular tradeoff isn’t worth it, but human life isn’t infinitely sacred. I assume if it were in your power, you also would rather let some people burn to death than ban wooden houses, for example. This, well, inflammatory emotive rhetoric really doesn’t lead to good discussion, or good policy for that matter.