> I don’t care if you have a permit or not, just the mentality of “I’m going to defend my wife and myself” sounds nuts to anyone not in the states.

Sounds absolutely batshit insane to many of us in the states too.

It does, but that's almost an irrelevant distraction from the consistent theme of Rust demanding things he asserts they have no right to. That is the point being made, not anything about guns.

In almost every example here you could decide that what Rust is saying is not unreasonable.

But in almost every case you could just as easily come to the conclusion he does, because his logic does hold.

(I don't mean the defend my wife & kids from terrorists at the software conference stuff is logical, we can agree that that is goofy, and that any event organizer or property owner probably (not a lawyer) has the same right to say that as they have to say "no shoes no shirt no service". But even then, that right is the event organizer's and the property owners, not the Rust foundation's unless they happen to directly be the one's throwing the event.

I would say what Rust is trying to do is more normal than reasonable. It's not uncommon at all, but that doesn't absolve it of critique.

And his point about intent is valid. The fact it's a draft and the purpose of a draft is exactly to discover objections like these, and may be revised before it's ratified, doesn't change what they want, which tells you the direction of all future updates, and the bias when judging any disputes.

Without that one wacky element which has nothing to do with Rust anyway (any more than any other wacky belief like in gods), I see no problem with this assertion of the character of whoever contributed to and approves of this draft, based on this consistently themed collection of points.

> if you think it’s weird not to allow you to have your firearm in a conference, I think you should think twice about it.

This means you can't legally have a conference in the state of Georgia on any public property (including universities). The state of Georgia requires venue and event organizers to allow firearms in public, state owned, or university locations.

We recently had Music Midtown, one our biggest music festivals with decades of rich history and major headliners, permanently shutter because they tried to prohibit guns and got sued.

These rules have unintended consequences. It's cute to try to be political, but this just excludes people.

Duly noted. I won't ever host any conference on public property in Georgia.

If you want to bring a weapon to my conference, you are not welcome.

Do you realize that they want to bring a gun mostly because you don't want them to? By speaking the words "guns not invited" into the universe, you draw an intense desire from many gun advocates to respond. It's just polarization on one side leading to more polarization on the other side. The more one party pushes, the more the other pushes back. It's a self-amplifying feedback loop.

The only reason they want to do any of this is because their needs (in an abstract sense) are not being met. Because the system is inadequate at addressing everyone's needs, regardless of belief or party affiliation.

This is mimetic tribalism, where the players think that their tribe can better meet their needs and insecurities. Guns aren't even what this is about.

In any case, I'm annoyed that the Rust Foundation finds it worth their time to play these games.

This isn't tribalism. I don't want people at a conference I organize to feel unsafe, or worse to be put in actual risk due to the unnecessary presence of firearms that have no reason to be there.

Guns go off unintentionally. People react before properly assessing a situation. Someone dead, on the floor, riddled with bullets is not an acceptable outcome no matter the situation that led up to it. Not in any event I organize.

If you feel unsafe because you can't bring your gun, then don't come. You're not welcome.

Someone that wants to bring a gun with an intention to hurt people is going to bring one anyway. There's no stopping that.

By visibly signalling "no guns", you're just drawing attention to yourself.

Nobody was going to bring a gun to your event. Those kinds of people likely aren't interested in your event to begin with as it's a different demographic.

By advertising that guns aren't welcome, you just created drama and an intense desire for people that were never interested in the first place to suddenly find themselves involved and to want to deliberately break your rules.

You just created a situation.

In any case, I use Rust for most of my engineering work these days. I just want to have Rust conferences and meetups in my home town of Atlanta. I don't want drama.

> By advertising that guns aren't welcome, you just created drama and an intense desire for people that were never interested in the first place to suddenly find themselves involved and to want to deliberately break your rules.

> You just created a situation.

That sounds borderline victim blaming.

Someone decides that their conference is safer without guns, advertises to not bring guns as a requirement for entrance and now it's their fault for creating a situation. It doesn't make sense. Because the opposite: ban guns and don't advertise it, would just create another situation when someone came with a gun...

The gun nuts create a situation, they can choose to not bring a gun or not go to the event, they choose to be overly dramatic about it or not.

As opposed to "my gun or your IT ecosystem is dead to me" which is so not creating drama over unrelated things ? /s

What other basic right of agency should it be ok for you to control?

You're quite hung up on guns but it's not about guns it's about anything that's none of your business.

I think religion and religious thinking and ideas are more dangerous than any guns. Let's count the bodies and the misery if you th8nk that was a silly statement. Do I get to thow an event about a software programming language and have an AI scan everyone's internet footprint and exclude anyone that my AI determines is in any way religious? Or just assume we have thought scanning tech that can just show it as directly as frisking someone for a gun. Do I get to do that?

I hate religion as much as the next person and one can argue about the number of deaths that religion has caused, but a religious person attending a convention is unlikely to directly cause other convention goers to die during the convention. Unless armed with weapon such as a gun. And if they suddenly start preaching and converting you can escort them safely off the premises.

So potential is good enough justification?

Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.

I suppose it must be reasonable to bar anyone who knows how to lock doors and start fires, or mix cleaning supplies. Assume we had an equivant way to scan for it like a metal detector or a frisking.

> So potential is good enough justification?

If you disagree that potential is a good enough justification, would you agree that private citizens should be able to own nuclear bombs? If not, why? If you do think citizens owning nuclear bombs is reasonable, I don't think we will find common ground.

> Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.

Try attending a conference openly carrying a bucket of arsenic or a bottle of anthrax. Or just a jerrycan with gasoline and some matches. Or wearing a bomb vest and wielding a machete. I like to imagine you will be sent away. It's not like guns are unfairly targeted here.

When those other methods of murdering people are as common in the death-statistics as firearms (such as the "killing spree by a muscular martial artist" one you propose), perhaps we should worry about them more. But they are not, so banning guns is the most logical step to increase safety.

No matter how many times you remove the top of any list, there is still a top of the list. It accomplishes nothing.

True, carrying a pail of nerve gas, or even merely gasoline, somewhere out of context will be prevented generally for it's mere potential, but there are several things about that:

It was a remarkable out of context event, not someone merely existing as they do all day every day, where their weapon is a part of them like their wallet or their knowledge.

You don't have to carry anything large that is detectable without a rather invasive search which you cannot perform outside of maybe North Korea.

You don't have to carry anything at all. The danger is all in the will and abilities of any individual.

Saying nuclear bomb is a form of Godwin's law. Merely saying it at all exposes that one is not arguing from meaningful thought or data but pure hyperbole and emotion.

I don't really care about guns at all, but I don't mind those that have opinions on either side of the argument. I prefer those without strong opinions one way or the other, because I care more about finding fun things in common.

I really think the Rust Foundation is acting childish. They should be the bigger party. They're literally rubbing this issue in everyone's face for no reason, and if you read the blog posts or watch the videos - this isn't even limited to guns. They're preventing all sorts of Rust activities. You can't have a "Rust and Anime" meetup or a "Rust Robotics" meetup.

I'm pretty sure from a legal standpoint the Rust Foundation has just prevented Rust meetups on the Georgia Tech campus. That's really smooth as we've had meetups there up to this point.

False equivalency: guns kill people. no-guns doesn't. I'm with life.

So, people who don't want guns around them, kids, drunks, are the ones at fault ?

There's no way in hell I'd ever go to an event where people are allowed to carry firearms. What the fuck? People with guns make any place unsafe, not safer.

That's cool, you don't have to attend. The weird part is having a long list of intrusive requirements for even just running a small meetup that uses the Rust trademark. Same with the bizarre swag rules and code of conduct requirement. The Rust Foundation should respect diversity and let organizers set rules appropriate for their local culture and environment, rather than trying to prescribe one size fits all policies by using trademark law as a bludgeon.

No guns is not intrusive, it’s sane. Everywhere in the world.

The comment right below yours describes how this effectively bans events on public property in Georgia, because they passed a law to address this precise issue. Other states may have similar laws. Was the Rust Foundation even aware of this? Regardless, this is the expected outcome when top-down intrusive decision making fails to account for regional and cultural diversity.

Great, then no Rust events for Georgia. Good riddance.

If a state goes above and beyond to force guns in unrelated events, then good for the Rust foundation to go above and beyond on keeping their attendees safe.

I have no idea what mental gymnastics you make to think forcing event organizations to allow guns is not intrusive but the opposite is.

If anything, allowing guns scares away people that would actually qualify as 'diverse'. "Gun carrier" is not a protected class.

Protected class in the civil rights sense, no. In the second amendment sense, it very much is.

Uninteresting, but irrellevant, because what does that have to do with copyrighting a trademark?

> 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 . . . .

The danger is well known, not unknown: it's people with guns.

> 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?

Dude 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.