Interesting decisions on the table there, Supe. I would argue that "some think it is
desirable and others think it is not" - desirable to live under the crushing weight of the level of regulations/controls necessary to achieve that outcome... or to live a life free of that level of regulation/control and accept that we must deal with these "feral people" (great reference, p911dad).
I think ol' Ben Franklin put it very well - "those who would sacrifice any measure of liberty to achieve any measure of security deserve neither".
The answer is not to regulate/control everyone in an effort to contain the "feral people". The answer is to deal decisively with the "feral people" and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
Some think it is possible and others think it is not. They are, respectively, (and respectfully), Republicans and Democrats. 
I actually don't believe that for a minute (the political part) - it's not Republicans vs. Democrats on this issue. It's realists vs. empathists (I made up that word). Those who see the reality of human nature and those who dream of what it could, what it should be. The former clearly recognize these "feral people" for who they are and what they represent as a burden and a danger to the rest of us. The latter see them as "poor, misunderstood" people who are entirely capable of rehabilitation and re-assimilation back into (as if they were ever really in) society, if only we click our heels and wish hard enough. I obviously subscribe to the former.