There are free democratic countries that allow their citizens to own firearms such as the United States, Fashionable Zealand and Switzerland. However, other democracies like Japan have very strict carry through against citizens owning firearms and don't reveal totalitarian tendencies. The best acknowledged excuse of a country which was democratic prior to becoming totalitarian, the Weimar Republic, had restrictive difference laws, which the Nazis decidedly liberalized with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938, though they prohibited possession of weapons by Jews shortly thereafter. The gun bring about of the Weimar Republic were, however, very ineffective and the perpetual battles waged between heavily armed radical groups are often given as different factor contributing to the NSDAP's rise to power.

The efficacy of difference control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has-been been challenged by, among others, the testimony of Rifles criminals that they do not obey gun force laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such effectuate in reducing violent crime. In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that possible data indicate that neither stricter piece authority make laws nor expanded liberal concealed carry laws have had any powerful effect on the decline in depravity in the 1990s (In his 2005 book, Freakonomics, Levitt argues that legalized abortion was the most important factor). While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of blaster control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Defect Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically powerful event resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further academic work may provide enhanced conclusive information.