> Either way, no one is talking about taking away the right of self-defense in general; we've been talking about restricting the presence of firearms at a conference. As always, when you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.

Taking away the tools to do it is the same as taking away the right for the weaker of us. Especially women.

If a woman carries a gun to a conference, she has a good way of avoiding sexual assault. Without one, not so much.

> So you're admitting there are still mass shootings at rural schools despite a culture of gun safety and proliferation of guns in the community?

That is not what I said. I know of no shootings at rural schools off of the top of my head.

> Because you felt less safe without it, it seems. You were afraid, then equipped a weapon, then you were less afraid. Okay, no shame in that.

Uh, no. I said I felt perfectly safe in the place where it happened before it happened.

I wear my knife by habit. I put it on when I dress in the morning and take it off when I get ready for bed. I wear it even when I never leave the house.

Trust me: I feel perfectly safe at home and would still feel that way even if I didn't carry the knife.

> Politicians are passing laws to make it easier for people to buy guns

Funny. I haven't heard of any.

> In the news right now is the story that the governor of Texas aspires to pardon a man who was found guilty of murder with a gun during those riots. Tell me, what message do you think this sends to gun enthusiasts? Do you think it will make gun culture more safe, or less safe?

More safe.

What you leave out (whether intentional or not) is that the man who was killed put a gun in the face of the man who killed him. The man who killed him did nothing before that, but I guarantee you that when someone puts a gun in my face, I'm going to shoot.

That man was only convicted because the prosecutor withheld evidence.

> also have been subjected to active shooter drills their entire childhood -- something that's foreign to you and me.

I had those too. In Idaho. Where there had never been an actual active shooter.

It's part of being prepared.

> Today, there is no sick knife culture where people use knives to kill children, teens, people in grocery stores and churches.

There is in the UK, which just shows that with the bad culture, killers would use knives in the absence of guns.

> The reason your gun isn't welcome at a Rust conference is because your culture of gun safety died.

If it did, by the way, it's also the fault of politicians claiming that AR-15's are "weapons of war," that nobody needs them or even sport rifles, that nobody needs handguns because the police exist. The sick gun culture comes from gun bros and the people trying to ban guns by claiming that they are only used for nefarious purposes.

This is one reason the safe gun culture is foreign to you: because people are claiming it doesn't exist.

> And let's be honest, you're voting for the people who are helping kill your culture of gun safety, right?

Uh, no. Not unless the other option is worse.

> The NRA used to be an organization that cared about gun safety, but now they're basically a PR branch and lobbyists for gun manufacturers.

I don't support the NRA.

> The Republican party leadership doesn't care about gun safety, because if they did they would pass common-sense gun reform laws, which are supported by the majority of even conservatives!

Republican politicians don't care what voters think. They care what lobbyists think. I hate lobbyists.

But what are "common sense gun reform laws"? Taking away guns? No, that's not common sense. Making it harder to get guns? Then you would just tip the balance of safe gun owners and unsafe gun owners in favor of unsafe gun owners because they'll go through the extra hoops, or buy illegally.

A lot of mass shootings could be stopped by good old-fashioned police work. A lot of mass shooters are known to law enforcement before anything happened, but people didn't follow through.

> But you're still voting for them, right?

Not if I can help it.

But if you put two politicians in front of me and one says he will take away my tools of self-defense, as well as my future children because I'm Christian and don't buy into the current orthodoxy, I'm probably going to vote for the one that doesn't say that, even if he doesn't do anything.

> Yes, absolutely! Do this! But how?

By making it a duty, like jury duty or conscription, except it isn't selectively applied, and it applies once everyone reaches adulthood.

You can even make it cost, like drivers' licenses. I'm okay with that if it's only to recoup the cost. I'm okay with getting it renewed every year as well.

And the end result will be that everyone will call out the lies by politicians and sick gun bros. Women will have the training they need to level the playing field against men. And nowhere would be safe for killers to shoot with impunity.