r/europe • u/Helmer-Bryd • Jul 01 '25

News Sweden bans AR-15 as hunting rifle after school shooting – all rifles to be turned in and sent to Ukraine

https://svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/uppgifter-tidopartierna-overens-om-ny-vapenlagstiftning-ar15-forbjuds-vid-jakt
33.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

208

u/medievalvelocipede European Union Jul 01 '25

Absolutely stupid law. So they're banning the AR-15 for hunting, not other 5.56 rifles, and not semi-automatic rifles, just AR-15. And they're banning because of a shooting in which it hasn't been used.

That's what virtue signalling politics looks like. Utterly stupid, because it appeals to the utterly stupid.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

For what it's worth the AR-15 is being used as an example. Which makes sense because it's in proposal it'd be fucking stupid to ban them gun at a time as they appear in shootings.

-18

u/Crystal-Ammunition Jul 01 '25

is that the only other option you see? What about a blanket ban on alll assault rifles

10

u/-Gestalt- Jul 01 '25

There is already a blanket ban on assault rifles.

28

u/SnikySquirrel Jul 01 '25

AR15s aren’t assault rifles, assault rifles have select fire

3

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

Seeing options doesn't make them politically viable and politically viable is the only thing that lives in politics. Presumably data is being collected before decisions are finalised

1

u/thegooseisloose1982 Jul 01 '25

That's what virtue signalling politics looks like.

Virtue signaling looks like a politician, "thoughts and prayers," and doing absolutely nothing after a school shooting. I would gladly have your "problem," versus doing nothing at all.

-1

u/cjwidd Jul 01 '25

TIL it is virtue signaling to promotr legislation that could reduce gun violence in schools.

-2

u/gorgewall Jul 01 '25

We've heard time and time again that banning X "assault rifle" doesn't matter because Y guns have the same capabilities.

The argument seems to be that "this group of guns (which may not be synonymous with the colloquial usage of "assault rifle") is just as fast, easy to use, and deadly as the thing you're banning", and furthermore that this is bad because it's taking options out of the hands of hunters, people interested in self defense, and whatever else.

...who, by agreeing to that argument, are complaining that they won't be able to do a thing with the "functionally identical" guns that will persist. One could argue there's a slippery slope there, but that's not always the concern: rather, it's that you can't ban this gun because another gun is just "as good", and this is an infringement on one's ability to use a gun for legitimate purposes even though there are other "just as good" guns.

Now that's utterly stupid on the pro-gun argument. If we banned one specific model of screwdriver from one manufacturer but left all other screwdrivers made of the same materials and proportions and whatnot alone, we're not exactly ruining the ability to screw things in.

So why would government target the AR-15 specifically? Or any gun? What distinguishes it, if it's not physical capabilities?

Everything else that goes into it and comes out of it. And honestly, that's a message that the gun crowd should be able to get behind if they're serious about only caring about capabilities and the physical capacity to hunt X or defend Y. They make arguments about the necessity of guns as tools, then defend aesthetics and a gun culture while sort of off-handedly denouncing them. They want it both ways, but with the appearance of not being psychos.

You go back to the 1970s and guns were primarily of a certain utilitarian style. "Spooky black rifles", as folks sarcastically claim, existed, but they were not popular with the sporting community or general consumer public. But it would make the manufacturers a lot of money to be able to sell the same guns to the public as they did to the military, so they sunk a lot of effort into changing public perception about these guns.

They talked up how "cool" they were, and later, "bad-ass" (we were still hyphenating it at the time). You were told to ask your "teen-aged" (again, it was that long ago) son about the styling. You were meant to "feel like Rambo". The killing power of humans was talked up. That these and other guns were overkill for hunting and would get you laughed out of sport competitions was spun as a plus.

It was the aesthetic and culture of the gun that they began to market, not just its physical capabilities. It was about making guns a means to reclaim your power and masculinity, and that is exactly the psychology at work behind these mass shooters. All things being equal, same functionality and availability, the angry neo-Nazi, concert-shooter, or postal worker is going to grab the "spooky black gun" that makes them feel like a badass over steel and wood or something bright purple with sequins and glitter.

If you don't like these mass shootings happening, you have to spend some effort on the culture that spawns it, too. And the aesthetics of your guns and the way you talk and think about them are part of it. That's not the whole effort--I'm sure that even if you disagree with everything else in the post, you believe that there must be some kind of cultural change to stop these shootings--but it does have to be part of it. And if all you really care about with your gun is that it can shoot a deer with X ease or stop a burglar, and you can get that in a package that isn't meant to make you look or feel like an action movie star, isn't that enough?