It's good PR CYA. They ensure that there will be a much lower chance of an article headlined "mass shooting at rust conference" being written.

I am personal'y of the opinion that brands play it too safe in general and people aren't stupid and know that just because a brand happened to be near something bad doesn't mean the brand is responsible and therefore bad, but apparently brands don't agree and they're the ones calling the shots on where they're displayed.

> They ensure that there will be a much lower chance of an article headlined "mass shooting at rust conference" being written.

I don't think this follows. Historically speaking, most mass shootings have occurred at locations that specifically disallow firearms, making them "soft targets" where the cowardly attacker will not have anyone fight back. It doesn't seem logically consistent to assume that this policy item has the effect you are stating.

They’re downvoting you because they don’t like hearing logic or the truth.

> most mass shootings have occurred at locations that specifically disallow firearms, making them "soft targets" where the cowardly attacke

Most places with large crowds disallow firearms, and most mass shootings occur at places with crowds. You're confusing correlation with causation.

I’m not making any claim of causality, simply stating that the claim of causality in the opposite direction does not follow.

Oh of all the logic to use, you literally get it backwards by saying gun-free zones are mass-shooting free zones.

HN never change please.

I understood it more as taking current US gun debate to Trademark Policy. Very weird.