You may be a victim of the Blub paradox. There are many useful and powerful features missing from languages like Go, and many of them (like powerful type systems) exactly address human mistake-making.
No need to get personal. I was talking about all the features in all the languages, not the ones in Go. And yes, we don't need more new features, we have plenty.
However, none of the languages I know of address psychological issues. Does type system reduce mistakes or introduce? Certainly both, don't know which one more though. But the question itself is wrong. It's not the type system who makes mistakes, humans do. And humans have brains. And brains are limited in their ability to do some thing while keeping other things in mind. And if among other things types happen to be present and mistake was made, than one could say types added to that mistake. And if types were not something programmer needed to think than type system certainly didn't add to that mistake. Things are not as simple as most programmers tend to think. Features don't matter how they think they matter. And research in language design was broken since the beginning of times and, sadly, still is.
(if you read "no silver bullet", "out of the tar pit" papers and couple of recent ones on bugs you should get the idea of how bad things are with mistake-making research)
Rust isn't nearly as stable as Go. It still hasn't reached the state that Go was in when it was released outside Google. That's not a judgment of Rust, just a result of it being developed in the open instead of inside a company, and it being much more ambitious than Go.
Go seems to be an iteration of Rob Pike's previous languages, Limbo and Newsqueak - perhaps with a sprinkling of other ideas, but not much.
Rust on the other hand has been a far more ambitious project, with very lofty goals. This has meant that the Rust team has needed to do a huge amount of experimentation and iteration, culminating in the tight set of core semantics that you see in the language today. It's not been an easy journey for the them, but a great deal has been learned in the process, and even if Rust never 'makes it' into widespread usage, its contributions to the field of programming language design will be felt for years to come.
This is not to diminish the efforts of the Go team - they have produced a really tight, polished language, with an excellent set of bundled libraries. All I'm saying is that they weren't starting from scratch, and had different goals to the Rust team. That has meant they could get to a stable language much faster.
That looks a lot like today's Go. All of the major design decisions were made, distinctive Go concepts (slices, maps, interfaces, goroutines, switching on concrete type, etc.) are all present. Most of the code examples would compile today with only a few tweaks (if any).
Suffice it to say that Rust was not in that state in 2010. It was barely in that state by 2014. Go was released as a beta; Rust was released as a pre-alpha. That isn't a judgment of either language or community.
Externally, it certainly seems that Go was open sourced in a far more finished state, with only relatively small tweaks after the initial release, while Rust was quite raw and has had most of its fundamental design work done in the open (with significant contribution from volunteers, both code and design) after being placed on github in 2010.
Rust 0.1 came out in the beginning of 2012, about 3 months before Go 1.0 game out (or go1). In the meantime, Rust has changed a lot and is only now close to a 1.0 release.