There was an episode of the Simpson's from a while back. I don't really even remember the premise of the episode (they all run together for me), but at the end all weapons were eliminated from the world and there was peace. Seconds later, some alien landed, picked up a stick and became ruler of the world. Seconds after that, another alien picked up a stick with a nail in it and became ruler, and seconds after that things elevated to firearms, bombs etc.
Everyone can argue about the underlying message, which is that that regardless of the tool, people will always find ways to assert their will over others through force. What cannot be argued is that the US constitution is widely regarded as the seminal document on modern government, and that one of the fundamental rights is the right to bear arms. People might argue that the right to bear arms is outdated and was only necessary for a revolutionary period, but to dismiss the right to bear as a fundamental flaw of a particular society is shortsighted.
One need only look at the countless flags that include AK-47s on them to understand that the ability to defend a piece of land is central to both liberty and freedom of any country. It's a valid point to question whether there is any need to bear small arms, but again it's ignorant to dismiss a society entirely because of individual views on a single subject.
I recall an episode of Law and Order where McCoy & the Angie Harmon character debated gun laws for about 20 seconds. McCoy stated his belief that if gun laws were tightened, all people would be able to protect themselves equally. The Harmon character countered (paraphrasing) unless you're a singe woman and some 6'5" 250 guy breaks in and attacks you. Again, the premise is that whatever the "top" weapon is, people will exert their will over other through force. If all weapons were eliminated, then physical size would be king.
One should also consider that if all weapons were eliminated and only agents of the government had arms, the ability to change the government could be severely compramized. I think a substantial portion of the population (even in the US) is more concerned about the government exerting too much control over their lives than they are about being shot in their own neighborhood; the situation is magnified in countries where the government is far less stable.
So, will eliminating firearms solve any problems? Possibly. Does public ownership of firearms have any usefulness in a society like the US? Possibly not. But simply it's ignorant to dismiss the issue without considering why people feel the need to own and bear their own arms.