5 ms·

> Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal? Defending myself i

> Good on you for aspiring to defend your family, but how does bringing fire arms to a technical conference about Rust accomplish that goal? Defending myself is definitely a part of defending my family because if I am gone, there is no one else to defend them. > If you think that the Rust conference is a dangerous place where you will need your gun, I suggest you stay home. I can assure you the conferences are perfectly safe, no one has needed to defend their family at one before. Or themselves? Again, I claim the right to defend myself too. While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen. And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. They are places where crazy nuts of any persuasion may show up and open fire with impunity because they can expect no one to fire back. The Covenant school shooter chose the school over another more secure place, and it was people with guns that took the shooter out. The Aurora, Colorado shooting was in a gun-free zone, IIRC. There are others. By implementing this policy, the Rust Foundation will be broadcasting to every person with a killer's will and a gun that Rust events are prime targets, so ironically, this policy will be what makes Rust events dangerous. As for the business side, imagine that the Rust Foundation takes the same dislike to me as they have taken to firearms. Parts of that policy are very open-ended, such that the Foundation could decide they don't like me and come after me on principle for putting "written in Rust" in the README without the TM or Registered marks. This policy is open-ended enough for that. It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with. I'm not stupid, so I'm not going to depend on the Rust Foundation.

ModernMech 4y ago
> While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen. You know what, you make a good point. It's only a matter of time before there's a mass shooting at a technical conference in America. I mean, we have them in schools, theatres, churches, malls, grocery stores, sports events, parades, concerts, parks, banks... why not a technical conference? Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying. > It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. As an independent language developer, I appreciate that your point of view can work out in my favor, so I can't really disagree with it!
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  > Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying. Yes, exactly. > In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I will say that I currently do this. I use C, shell, and my own language. And for C, I use as many compilers as I can.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    I'm not being sarcastic. The idea that we shouldn't use languages produced by corporations because their goals don't align with users helps me. My first paragraph was 1 part sarcasm, 1 part cynicism, 2 parts accepting the grim reality of America.
thiht 4y ago
> And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. Can you back that up? That’s not my experience from living in a country with no guns, hence no mass shootings.
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  In America, where we have a mental illness epidemic. Culture also plays a big part.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > In America, where we have a mental illness epidemic. But other countries also have mental illness problems on par with the US. Why don't they have the same rates of gun violence? Why don't they have daily mass shootings? > Culture also plays a big part Many people believe that the US has a unique cultural problem where individuals have near-unrestricted access to firearms, and are also so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves.
    - gavinhoward 4y ago
      Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place. By the way, as an owner of firearms, I can tell you that there is no where near "unrestricted access" for anyone unless you're buying them illegally. It was a huge process for me to buy weapons, including a firearm from my father-in-law. Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm. Also, as part of getting my concealed carry, I had to attend a class, and in that class, they drilled into us that we are liable for any collateral damage from use of our weapons. They also drilled into us the fact that we will always have to justify our use of force to our peers, and if we don't, we're going to suffer for it. In addition, we were taught what situations were correct for using force and what situations are not. Most of all, we were drilled to think before we do anything, including drawing our weapons. All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once. I never drew my weapon despite him walking up to us aggressively. I used my words to force him away. I did that because that class taught me to never drew my weapon until shooting is the only recourse left to me. So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves" is wrong, at least in my state. In general, CCW holders are the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful gun owners in the US.

ModernMech 4y ago

> While nothing has happened at Rust events yet, that may very well happen. You know what, you make a good point. It's only a matter of time before there's a mass shooting at a technical conference in America. I mean, we have them in schools, theatres, churches, malls, grocery stores, sports events, parades, concerts, parks, banks... why not a technical conference? Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying. > It would be stupid if anyone to accept that a business's existence can depend on the mood of an entity that has shown it to be adversarial to people or companies that it disagrees with In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. As an independent language developer, I appreciate that your point of view can work out in my favor, so I can't really disagree with it!

gavinhoward 4y ago
> Best avoid them altogether in America unless you're carrying. Yes, exactly. > In that case, I guess we can't use any languages made by corporations. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I will say that I currently do this. I use C, shell, and my own language. And for C, I use as many compilers as I can.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  I'm not being sarcastic. The idea that we shouldn't use languages produced by corporations because their goals don't align with users helps me. My first paragraph was 1 part sarcasm, 1 part cynicism, 2 parts accepting the grim reality of America.

thiht 4y ago

> And ironically, explicit gun-free zones are among the most dangerous places to be. Can you back that up? That’s not my experience from living in a country with no guns, hence no mass shootings.

gavinhoward 4y ago
In America, where we have a mental illness epidemic. Culture also plays a big part.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > In America, where we have a mental illness epidemic. But other countries also have mental illness problems on par with the US. Why don't they have the same rates of gun violence? Why don't they have daily mass shootings? > Culture also plays a big part Many people believe that the US has a unique cultural problem where individuals have near-unrestricted access to firearms, and are also so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves.
  - gavinhoward 4y ago
    Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place. By the way, as an owner of firearms, I can tell you that there is no where near "unrestricted access" for anyone unless you're buying them illegally. It was a huge process for me to buy weapons, including a firearm from my father-in-law. Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm. Also, as part of getting my concealed carry, I had to attend a class, and in that class, they drilled into us that we are liable for any collateral damage from use of our weapons. They also drilled into us the fact that we will always have to justify our use of force to our peers, and if we don't, we're going to suffer for it. In addition, we were taught what situations were correct for using force and what situations are not. Most of all, we were drilled to think before we do anything, including drawing our weapons. All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once. I never drew my weapon despite him walking up to us aggressively. I used my words to force him away. I did that because that class taught me to never drew my weapon until shooting is the only recourse left to me. So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves" is wrong, at least in my state. In general, CCW holders are the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful gun owners in the US.