4 ms·
> If it’s a dangerous place, why do you even go? And if it’s not, why the bell would you need an firearm? Have you considered the non-black-and-white possibili
by Tommstein 4y ago
> If it’s a dangerous place, why do you even go? And if it’s not, why the bell would you need an firearm?
Have you considered the non-black-and-white possibility that it's unknown whether danger will present itself at the conference? No one ever went to a school or just about anywhere else outside a war zone expecting to get shot up or otherwise attacked and possibly murdered, and yet . . . .
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- obarthelemy 4y agoThe danger is well known, not unknown: it's people with guns.
- no-s 4y ago> The danger is well known, not unknown: it's people with guns. well, apparently not well known to you. The danger is criminals with guns. Law-abiding people carry guns everyday and demonstrably present no significant additional threat to the public. The thesis that law-abiding people could suddenly become dangerous gun criminals at a Rust event simply because they possess a firearm seems unsupportable. Apparently the Rust Foundation wants us to accept the premise that lawfully armed people are intrinsically dangerous to fellow Rust enthusiasts, doubly so if they dissent. I’d like to know what is it about Rust that makes lawful behavior and public dissent over Rust foundation dicta so hazardous...? Can someone address this directly?
- Tommstein 4y agoDude would be praying to all gods known and unknown that there's a law-abiding person with a gun around to save their ass if someone who doesn't give a single flying fuck about the conference's gun rules shows up to shoot the place up, someone who could respond before the police finally show up also armed with guns but too late to do anything but drag their dead corpse out.