Cultures have proved that humans can live harmoniously with nature, and humans have proved that a lot of us like killing the planet.
One source of differences in thought or opinion on RKBA (a handy forum abbreviation for 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms') is individuals' worldviews, especially the difference between those who believe that Man in his natural state is inherently good, vs, those who believe that he is morally neutral or inherently evil to a lesser or even a great degree. So, weapons seem unnecessary in the ideal to those who believe that We Are All One Nice Bunch of Folks Underneath it All.
Others believe differently: that any community of humans includes a subset who would rather sate their needs by using their force to take from others instead of using their force (and possibly brainpower) to create their own value and trade value for value to meet their wants and needs. This subset can be opposed by the general availability of effective, personal defensive arms as a 'great equalizer.'
One writer has remarked that in the course of history, until the invention and widespread possession of an effective deterrent, no one had much incentive to produce more than he (or his retenue) could personally defend. To do so would invite a visit by a knight errant who would TAKE, by force of arms - which was in medieval times the basis for the force of law, and even jurisprudence. If you disagreed with your King for example, you could challenge the King's Champion, beat him in armed combat, and that would make you 'right.' Losing would make you 'wrong,' and possibly a bit lighter of a few bodily parts as well.
The development of personal firearms led to a greater sense of the security to produce in abundance, to manage larger herds and wider tracts of land. A knight was someone who did not produce goods or foods for himself but instead trained for years to master the weapons of his day while being fed by other's labors. But suddenly technology changed and he could be felled by a black-powder pistol wielded by someone having had only a few hours' instruction and practice, and not a great deal of upper body strength.
Anyone notice that the 'droit du seigneur' also seemed to fall out of favour with the rise of personal firearms? Peasant farmers and 'the working class' could easily have grown weary of passing Big Boys on Horses physically abusing their sisters and daughters, and effective personal arms that anyone could learn to use well enough allowed even the lowliest to successfuly oppose that practice. Social change!
Also, us as humans really don't need meat to survive, it just tastes good and happens to have some nutrients. If you are eating a steak and it doesn't have any red in it, then all of the nutrients are basically gone or insignificant.
Evolutionary history shows the largest increase in cranial capacity occurred in tandem with the switch from vegetarianism to meat eating. Compared to the mental skills for tool creation and use, and for observing, understanding, stalking, outsmarting, and overpowering critters that don't really intend to to be your dinner in the first place - it doesn't take much brain activity to sneak up on a PLANT. Then later, we got to use our bigger brains to invent vacuum tubes, transistors, and eventually gaming consoles!
Personally, I think the planet would be better off without humans in
Others of us prefer to live this life, experiment and challenge our place and destiny here, and to exist, survive, and if we may: prevail. Your mileage may vary.
However when I examine your willingness to perish or preference not to have existed here, then expanded to your wish that none of us other folk have our chance at life, then would it seem sound to link your opinion on personal survival with your opinion on RKBA?
If one may do so, then it would seem that hoplophobia is a non-survival trait.
Is A M-16 made for getting food? I didn't think you needed to shoot a deer that many times to kill it.
Of course, arms are also used for sporting and there is time-worn pleasure in improving accuracy at a distance. This is as old as two kids designating any sort of target and contending with each other who can hit it from further away - whether with rocks, darts, arrows, or a 750gr .50cal bullet fired from 2 1/2 miles out... All of this is morally legitimate sporting. So is shooting cans and bottles with a kid's first BB gun or 22cal. (And there's just something I find about plinking that flat-out outranks recycling.) And full-auto fun at a target range or other safe landscape is simply exhilarating.
Additionally, many people have a collector's interest in acquiring historically significant baubles, regardless of
need. You don't
need an original Picasso painting on your wall either, but a few people of means will spend millions to get one for themselves. Other people have a similar interest in firearms which look like or work like the venerable tools taken into historically significant battles, and make a connection with history, and with men and deeds they may or may not know. To hold an original Muromasa sword and know (or imagine) what it has been through - that is akin to buying at great price, one of the few remaining, operational Vickers machineguns from WWI. Or six guys in Virginia who take out an original Civil War cannon once in a while to see it work. Or watching 'Jin Ro' and dropping $45,000 for a real German WW2 MG42. Other folks who don't want a full-auto M16 may try the semi-auto AR15, to acquire the look and feel of the battle weapon, but in single-shot only function, which is still useful for testing one's accuracy at distance.
Although personally I don't hunt, I understand the desire to hunt animals with a tool that can relieve the animal of undue suffering by means of (a) delivering enough power to kill it quickly, and (b) able to reload quickly enough, even by means of an auto-loading or semi-automatic mechanism, to deliver a second shot to dispatch a wounded animal. I don't think anyone seriously hunts with a fully-automatic firearm.
All we need is spears, but if we only had spears, ...
There are many intriguing stories (more in SF but also plenty in anime) which use arbitrary restrictions on weapons as part of the setting. The easy way is a time before their invention, or simply without mentioning them as occuring in society. Other settings use generally accepted laws - you might be interested in 'The Compact' in the Darkover books - a planetary law that banned any form of attack in which the attacker did not risk an equally lethal act of defence from his intended victim. This meant that not only projectile weapons were OUT (guns, crossbows, catapults, etc.) but so was POISON, for example. However you still have the problem of the criminal element who decides to uses these illegal things ANYWAY. (If you've already decided to break one set of laws against, say trespassing and stealing, why stop at refraining from 'illegal' weapons?)
My wife recently read a fantasy book where they never invented chemical propellant firearms, but instead, the technology they had was such that the firearm took 2 or 3 minutes to recharge between shots. (I haven't read it yet, but I'll start it today, actually.)
