Pro-gun control people don&#x27;t assume that violence would cease without guns. Guns are designed and intended to be a force multiplier - one person with a gun can kill far more people far more easily than they could without a gun. Rather, pro gun-control people simply argue that a society without guns or with fewer guns is less violent than a society with more of them, and that the violence is more localized and easier to contain, for that reason.<p>Anti-gun control people actually agree with pro-gun control people on this point when they describe gun control as a means of a tyrannical state to pacify the populace, because, they warn, the lack of an armed populace makes it more difficult to commit violence against the state. This is a rationale codified into modern interpretations of the Second Amendment.<p>By extension, a populace less able to commit violence against the state is equally less able to commit violence against itself.<p>Really, both pro and anti gun-control people want a safe and secure society (excepting of course the lunatic and criminal fringe) but they disagree as to the role of guns in providing that safety and security. Unfortunately, it&#x27;s become kind of a matter of religion for each side, so discussions which aren&#x27;t fraught with hyperbole, strawmen and willful ignorance are difficult to have.