First off: the type system of Rust is very good.

Concurrency is mostly absolutely fearless (as advertised), but Yes, there are still footguns.

There are not more footguns than in other languages though.

So while the idea that psychologically it could be that people make more mistakes of another kind, because they think that the "magic of Rust" will guard them could indeed exist, I still prefer the help I get to no help at all.

If the same developers were to write e.g. C I am 100% sure they would make more mistakes.

Then maybe Rust was the wrong language for the problem to begin with?

Or they haven't learned and understood the borrow checker yet?

I mean a similar argument can be made against any language.

"The great freedom of C may make developers spend more time debugging all the segfaults they produce..."

I believe this is (among others) a very valid concern. When I dabbled in Rust to achieve what little I did, I was positively impressed by Rust's very helpful and detailed error messages that allowed me to make productive progress in a learning-by-doing fashion. The two singular items that absorbed a disproportionate amount of trial-and-error were the 43 different ways to declare a /&?[Ss]tr(ing)?/ variable for one thing and the other was, of course, the borrow checker. I tried to understand what I was doing but despite reading numerous helpful docs and blogs I resorted to doing it the cargo cult way: just keep moving around the letters and symbols until the compiler stops complaining...