On 22/05/2016 10:30, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:12 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I don’t agree it makes a difference if it is a stare-rule of and
>> environmental thing, also because as we need to contract the venue 2-3
>> years in advance, both situations can change in that period of time.
>>
>
> +1
>
> That is not a distinction we make now: at present, there are locations we
> avoid at least in part because they are not as safe as the locations to
> which we presently go. I think it would be highly reasonable, and I would
> support, a policy that the IETF does not go to any venue where concealed or
> open carry is legal, or where controls on the purchase of weapons were not
> adequately controlled.
>
> I say this based on the fact that the thing I worry about most in terms of
> random mayhem _is_ in fact that there will be some kind of random gun
> violence while I or Andrea are out and about. This has become a matter of
> increasing concern over time. It is a different topic than the Singapore
> topic, but let us not pretend that there are not IETFers who have this as a
> serious concern.
Yes, I agree that there is a distinction between "The state does not protect
me from a clear danger" and "The state might arrest one of my friends." My point
was really that they should both go in the balance.
Brian