It doesn't matter what you call the groups, or even how many groups you come up with. The point is that some are more compliant than the others - the conformists, the law-abiding etc - and it's those that you'll disarm first. The ones who don't actually care about the laws beyond the extent to which they can be meaningfully enforced will retain the means for violence. The only way to pretend-break this recursion is to outsource the violence (e.g. to the police and the military), and then claim that the rest of society is peaceful. But that's a sham - if you back a law that ultimately results in a cop enforcing it breaking the nightstick on someone's back, you're complicit in that act of violence.
The goal isn't to pretend there's no violence, the goal is to reduce the number of violent deaths.
And the police are going to need some weapons whether or not you have gun control.
So sure, some groups are more willing to give up guns than others. And we should perform a cost/benefit analysis while keeping that in mind. Plans don't have to meet some standard of ideological purity before we can evaluate them.
