Posted by Neil, UK on November 29, 2008:

I, for one, would deny that the privacy of law-abiding citizens is being infringed, as they are not being prevented from doing anything whatsoever which they would previously have been permitted to do in public. These surveillance systems don't assume the guilt of everyone, they are introduced in response to the demonstrable guilt of some.

Of course, "sousveillance" of those who choose to seek power in the public arena is also entirely appropriate.

Posted by Bernard in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia on December 27, 2008:

To Doug in AZ,

I strongly suggest you read the Snopes article at http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp for info about the firearms here in Oz. Crime rates shown no significant changes in trends before or after the banning of certain types of weapons (we can still own guns, just not semi- or fully-automatic ones).

The article also explains that firearms laws were very different in Australia to begin with. You *don't* have any right to bear arms in this country, and you certainly don't have a right to shoot someone who is committing or attempting to commit a crime against you (although the circumstances would certainly be taken into account at your trial and/or sentencing).

Personally, I think overly strict gun laws don't achieve much. The laws we already had did a reasonable job of keeping guns away from the crazy people (although, sadly, you can't stop all of them). Criminals will just ignore any laws, of course.

It's a similar issue to the surveillance cameras. Politicians love them because they give the impression of "doing something", and they often do actually result in lower crime rates in targeted areas. More importantly to the pollies, they're an awful lot cheaper & easier than providing more police and dealing with some of the fundamental problems that lead young people into committing such crimes.

Er, sorry for the rant, hope I provided something useful to the discussion!