I'm pretty well anti-"gun control" (I'm anti- lots of stuff!) but usually these discussion go nowhere because the people who tend to participate don't seem to have any interest in doing any homework on the subject. So it turns into the kind of discussion that starts off as "Who is the prettiest Friend?" ... no facts get discussed :-)
> But I think there is something new in the equation now: If
> gun control isn't significantly strengthened, I think
> it's a certainty there will be vastly increased use of constant TV
> surveillance of roads and all other public areas.
You think that's dependent on "gun control"? Or local events?
I think we're headed that way even if (maybe especially if!) "gun control" is strengthened.
> Isn't stricter gun control preferable to that?
I'm not sure there's an either-or question being presented :-)
It always seems to come down to: what would make law enforcement "easier" ...? Is it easy access to wire taps? Is it vast surveillance? Is it key escrow for encryption? Is it "random" frisking at airports? Is it "gun control" ...?
Who said law enforcement should be easy? :-)
I suppose that it's par for the course to focus in on aberrant behavior-du-jour and propose throwing the whole thing out. I mean, c'mon NY Press "Journalists" -- let's get out there and scratch the surface!
I think it's sorta weird that people are "terrorized" by the idea that they might get shot while pumping their gas (did you see the photos of the Guardian Angels offering to pump gas for people?), but not worried about getting killed in a traffic accident driving to and from the gas station.
/jordan