So basically, you wish to discuss the ramifications of gun control without discussing gun control? Or is there a dimension to this that I'm missing?

How about we look at historical models. Pick any major American city where the people have largely been forbidden from possessing legal arms- Washington DC is a wonderful example. The rich and powerful are able to buy the needed permits and higher the goon squads to keep them safe. If you are part of the everyone else, you are prey. While it is possible to own but very complicated to carry in other many of the major cities, the rate of violent, stranger-on-stranger crime is a little lower, but not low.

Conversely, take a state where it was difficult to carry or own, and they have made it easier. Florida used to make it rather difficult to carry a concealed handgun, then they developed the model of what is called "Shall issue". It makes it easier to carry. And in the first five years of Florida having the "shall issue" policy, their violent crime rates dropped in double digit percents every year. During that time, their surrounding states and the nation as a whole had crime rise every year.

And keep in mind, very few countries have ever had the powers granted under the PATRIOT Act. With that, organized gun owners who peacefully protest and challenge a banning bill could be simply declared what other countries have called "enemies of the state" and disappeared in the night. And many of us here would be part of that- we would be declared dangerous "survivalists" and "paranoid radicals". After all, we are adept at living off the land, have stockpiled equipment and supplies, use alternative and unregulated means of communication (hams) and no small number of us are familiar with irregular warfare in theory.

Think about the other nations where people were declared "enemies of the state" and "state traitors". A lot of those were elected, just like ours is. Others were put into power through popular uprising, which is voting of another kind.