4 ms·

> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences What's supposed to be wrong with this? I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearm

by lol768 4y ago

> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences What's supposed to be wrong with this? I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited. I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Hamuko 4y ago
[flagged]
- Macha 4y ago
  The only unique part of this is that it's in the trademark policy itself rather than in a supplemental events policy when you ask to be authorized to use the trademark for your event.
- krapp 4y ago
  Carrying firearms around is a non-issue in most of the world because in most of the world, civilian possession and use of firearms is strictly regulated if not outright banned. Obviously this is not the case in the US.
  - 0zemp1c 4y ago
    right, and all of these laws are also not subject to the approval or disapproval of the Rust Foundation
- capableweb 4y ago
  > Carrying firearms around is already a non-issue in most of the world, so it's pretty weird to focus so much on it. Not sure which places in the world you are referring to, but it's illegal in most places, and where it's not illegal, it's generally frowned upon to be carrying guns, unless you're actively visiting areas where it's advisable to carry a gun, but those are not places you stay for long in, certainly not to live there long-term, more like areas you have to pass through.
  - jki275 4y ago
    That's not the case in the majority of the United States, though it mostly is elsewhere.
    - capableweb 4y ago
      "most of the world != majority of the United States" though.
      - jki275 4y ago
        Agreed, I wasn't arguing that point.
  - vpastore 4y ago
    For Americans the world is America an nothing else
gavinhoward 4y ago
Trademark and copyright law only goes so far, though. This is stretching both. That's what's wrong. By the way, in some states, it's legal to carry even where private actors forbid it, so you could attend a conference where they are "forbidden", and there could be people legally carrying anyway. People will never know.
0zemp1c 4y ago
> I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited. in most states, the decision to permit firearms on-site is made by the facility owner and must have legal posted signs so if a hotel in Texas doesn't have legal signage disallowing carrying on-site (no signs means you can carry), you can't just impose those rules for your own function (the correct course of action would be to hold your conference at a facility that operates policies you agree with)
fyzix 4y ago
So you want everyone to be defenseless in the even that a criminal decides to ignore your rules?
chungy 4y ago
What's wrong with it is that it's nothing the Rust Foundation should ever be concerned with. I sure as hell wouldn't want to attend conferences where firearms are forbidden. I don't want to be an easy target.
- krapp 4y ago
  An easy target for whom? If you show up to a conference armed because you're paranoid about being a "target," you are a bigger danger than whatever hypothetical threat you feel you need a loaded gun on hand at all times for.
  - chungy 4y ago
    An easy target for whomever decides to start shooting. Murderers don't obey rules, that's part of being a murderer. The idea that carrying a firearm is inherently dangerous is absurd.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Vecr 4y ago
    Why do you think that? For best results you would want at least two people who don't know each other, but are both well trained, carrying. Reduces the chance that something could happen unopposed.
  - tourmalinetaco 4y ago
    > you are a bigger danger Yes, the legally carrying gun owner with said gun stowed away is scarier than some madman with a gun and the intent to kill you. How could I forget?
thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
>>>> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences >> What's supposed to be wrong with this? It is over-reach. What if the policy stated that all conference participants could only eat vegan foods? Or that the conference had to have all energy use with 100% green energy sources? Or that all conference materials had to use the English language? Or that the conference proceedings must pause for the call to prayer? >> I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements. Good luck getting everyone around the world to agree what the 'basic requirements' should be. Why not leave those details to the conference organizers?

by lol768 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Hamuko 4y ago

[flagged]

Macha 4y ago
The only unique part of this is that it's in the trademark policy itself rather than in a supplemental events policy when you ask to be authorized to use the trademark for your event.
krapp 4y ago
Carrying firearms around is a non-issue in most of the world because in most of the world, civilian possession and use of firearms is strictly regulated if not outright banned. Obviously this is not the case in the US.
- 0zemp1c 4y ago
  right, and all of these laws are also not subject to the approval or disapproval of the Rust Foundation
capableweb 4y ago
> Carrying firearms around is already a non-issue in most of the world, so it's pretty weird to focus so much on it. Not sure which places in the world you are referring to, but it's illegal in most places, and where it's not illegal, it's generally frowned upon to be carrying guns, unless you're actively visiting areas where it's advisable to carry a gun, but those are not places you stay for long in, certainly not to live there long-term, more like areas you have to pass through.
- jki275 4y ago
  That's not the case in the majority of the United States, though it mostly is elsewhere.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    "most of the world != majority of the United States" though.
    - jki275 4y ago
      Agreed, I wasn't arguing that point.
- vpastore 4y ago
  For Americans the world is America an nothing else

gavinhoward 4y ago

Trademark and copyright law only goes so far, though. This is stretching both. That's what's wrong. By the way, in some states, it's legal to carry even where private actors forbid it, so you could attend a conference where they are "forbidden", and there could be people legally carrying anyway. People will never know.

0zemp1c 4y ago

> I sure as hell wouldn't attend a conference where firearms were permitted, and I'm fairly sure even the NRA have organised events where carrying firearms or other weapons is prohibited. in most states, the decision to permit firearms on-site is made by the facility owner and must have legal posted signs so if a hotel in Texas doesn't have legal signage disallowing carrying on-site (no signs means you can carry), you can't just impose those rules for your own function (the correct course of action would be to hold your conference at a facility that operates policies you agree with)

fyzix 4y ago

So you want everyone to be defenseless in the even that a criminal decides to ignore your rules?

chungy 4y ago

What's wrong with it is that it's nothing the Rust Foundation should ever be concerned with. I sure as hell wouldn't want to attend conferences where firearms are forbidden. I don't want to be an easy target.

krapp 4y ago
An easy target for whom? If you show up to a conference armed because you're paranoid about being a "target," you are a bigger danger than whatever hypothetical threat you feel you need a loaded gun on hand at all times for.
- chungy 4y ago
  An easy target for whomever decides to start shooting. Murderers don't obey rules, that's part of being a murderer. The idea that carrying a firearm is inherently dangerous is absurd.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Vecr 4y ago
  Why do you think that? For best results you would want at least two people who don't know each other, but are both well trained, carrying. Reduces the chance that something could happen unopposed.
- tourmalinetaco 4y ago
  > you are a bigger danger Yes, the legally carrying gun owner with said gun stowed away is scarier than some madman with a gun and the intent to kill you. How could I forget?

thesuperbigfrog 4y ago

>>>> Telling example to me was no firearms policy on conferences >> What's supposed to be wrong with this? It is over-reach. What if the policy stated that all conference participants could only eat vegan foods? Or that the conference had to have all energy use with 100% green energy sources? Or that all conference materials had to use the English language? Or that the conference proceedings must pause for the call to prayer? >> I don't think it's unreasonable to try and ensure events marketing themselves using a Rust trademark are organised according to some basic requirements. Good luck getting everyone around the world to agree what the 'basic requirements' should be. Why not leave those details to the conference organizers?