Another word for “gun control” is “disarmament”, but the latter word has been historically used in the context of nation-states, so the proponents of state power don’t like to use it because it also forces the discussion to include all forms of weaponry … including nuclear, chemical and biological.

As you point out, if you are for disarmament it makes no sense to start with the smallest and leave the biggest to continue their violent ways. People understand this viscerally; if you live in a world steeped in state violence, the only outcome of disarming yourself is to leave yourself even more at the mercy of violent, insane politicians claiming the right to kidnap you, steal your stuff and, if it comes to that, kill you.

While it’s certainly true, as some have pointed out, that a camo-clad middle-aged guy with a paunch and an AR-15 is no match for a SWAT team, let alone a military attack force, millions and millions of armed guys (and gals) lurking everywhere makes the military takeover of a country an unrealistic idea.

When you turn it around, though, and imagine a world where the politicians surrendered their weapons of mass insanity, you have an environment where ordinary, everyday people can realistically start thinking about dumping their guns too. Guns are, after all, expensive and dangerous, so if they serve no useful purpose they’re better off melted down and used for something else.