is to question whether the apparent "safety" brought about by widespread personal firearm posession is a safety you wish to endure.

A reasonable question, to be sure.

But that's part of the reason that we have the 2nd Amendment. So that we would (not could) have widespread personal firearm possention...

But leaving that aside, sure, that's a reasonable question. But don't forget the total cost (most *ahem* people on the gun-grabbing side of the debate tend to).

But the biggest problem:

I think it should be easy enough to draw a parallel between the increased security of a surveillence state and the increased safety of a well-armed populace.

Most of the proponents of a populace not denied the right to be armed, such as myself, would also hotly disagree with the concept of such a state.

in supporting a system shown to reduce crime

With the cameras, I think that's not proven/shown yet. Pretty sure.

But most of us don't trust the government to protect us. :)

Addison