Yemen, I think, and some other Middle Eastern countries pretty much have an "anything goes" policy - full autos, etc.
Actually Yemen ceased having that freedom in 2007 under pressure from Europe and the US antis to impose stricter small arms controls. They spun it as a local thing, but it was primarily a result of foreign pressure to eliminate the freedom.
Thier per capita murder rate was lower than the US.
Since then they have outlawed most of it, but since its such a strong part of the culture virtually everyone outside the main city ignores it and carries as before.
It could be a important change even for Americans as Yemen was once a main location to register vessels for tax purposes and various liberties that went with the flag. So if thier laws are worse, and you are sailing under thier flag, it could effect your freedoms at sea.
Many other nations that in reality have almost anything goes do not officially allow that. For example you can find plenty of videos of tourists firing machineguns, RPGs, and tossing grenades in Cambodia online. But that is not legal according to thier government.
There is many portions of the world where what is done, cultural expected or allowed, and what is officially legal according to the capitol many miles away are completely different.
Almost everyone has an AK in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but that is not legal under Pakistani law.
Governments like control, the only real power governments have to fall back on if necessary to preserve thier authority is use of force. That is not as easy or effective against an armed population. So governments around the world seek to disarm everyone except thier own military and LEO forces.
This had been the case for thousands of years. It is still the case today. The only time governments want thier average citizens to be armed historically is when the threat of losing thier authority to foreign invaders is greater than the risk from thier own population. Such as England facing the potential Nazi invasion.
As soon as that threat is over they want thier subjects to pose as minimal a force as possible.
That is why the UN, represented by most national governments in the world can completely agree that reduction of small arms held by citizens across the globe is a strong priority. Regardless of thier disagreements with each other, they all want thier subjects easier to efficiently manage.
It is easy to rule millions with tens of thousands if only the tens of thousands have effective arms. Or rule hundreds of millions with only hundreds of thousands. That is why gun control is always at its heart about control. They may exploit crying mothers and what is thought of as the stereotypical anti to achieve that objective, but it is an objective of governments globally.
That said many governments have no problem with thier citizens having some minor arms that would never be effective against the armed men employed by the government. They primarily want the citizens disarmed of effective fighting arms that could be used to resist thier will or authority, not all guns in general.
Brazil's laws exemplify this example. They prohibit almost anything that can defeat body armor, including virtually all rifle rounds. But they have little to no problems with people having handguns, or carbines in handgun calibers. No problem with serfs having arms to kill other serfs, as long as they can not legally have arms that pose a threat to the "king's men", or today's version the government's forces.
It's not about crime, it's about control.
Many governments don't care if thier citizens have shotguns, and are limited to ammunition that poses no threat to body armored LEO or armored transports.
They have processes and permits and red tape, but they will allow those things, not because they are less deadly, but because they are easy for the government to still crush with force if necessary.
Very few governments though will let thier serfs possess effective modern arms on par with thier own forces. Like the most modern centerfire rifles, or other armaments that pose similar risks to thier troops.
Which of course was the whole original point of the 2nd Amendment in the USA when the founders wrote it. So every locality and every state was a threat to eachother and to the federal government. So everyone was resistant to tyranny from eachother. So the body of the people was always a greater threat than a force which could be raised and used against it.
The very opposite of what almost every government wants today, and has wanted since recorded history: absolute centralized power and authority with minimal potential resistance or threats.