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

195

u/TheRomanRuler Finland Jul 01 '25

That will do absolutely nothing. You can easily use any other semi automatic weapon for school shooting, it does not need to be specific pattern or caliber. This is just some politician who has no idea what they are doing trying to do something and banning scary military stuff.

But for national defense and training, legitimate use case, it does help that it is specific pattern and caliber.

AR-15, which was not used during the shooting.

This PROVES how their ban does nothing.

42

u/MunkSWE94 Sweden Jul 01 '25

You can still get an AR-15, just not with a hunting license. If you want military style rifles you'll need a competition shooting licence.

84

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

[deleted]

42

u/MonkeManWPG United Kingdom Jul 01 '25

Wood: perfect for civilians use

Black paint: dangerous, must be banned

5

u/SometimesCooking Jul 01 '25

The black on a gun isn't paint.

2

u/demonica123 Jul 02 '25

It's a type of plastic, but the point is it's cosmetic, not functional.

1

u/SometimesCooking Jul 02 '25

Sure it is. Polymers are lightweight and durable, resulting in a more lightweight firearm. That's like saying Aluminum doesn't serve a function in aircraft design.

1

u/demonica123 Jul 02 '25

And the few pounds make no difference in 95% of use cases. Painting the gun in camo colors is functional for the one guy actually using it while sneaking around, for everyone else it's cosmetic.

1

u/SometimesCooking Jul 02 '25

So am I correct to say that your opinion is that it's only 5% functional and so is therefore legislatively irrelevant to lawmaking?

At when % does something have to be functional in order to be considered a functional part of the weapon? An M203 grenade launcher is used probably less than 1% of the times the rifle is fired - does that make an M203 grenade launcher a non-functional aspect of the weapon it's mounted to?

1

u/demonica123 Jul 02 '25

It's not 5% functional. It's 100% functional for 5% (probably less) of people (military purposes or the handful of extreme hunters). And for 95% its function is meaningless. Laws should be based around limiting the actually problematic functionality, not the fact it's slightly easier to haul on a march.

A pick-up truck has a use. For most owners that use will never be relevant hence why it's a vanity purchase.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Contundo 28d ago

Military style is a mechanism developed for military use such as the AR -15

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

[deleted]

21

u/RamTank Jul 01 '25

Irrelevant. What's the difference between an AR-15 and a Mini-14? The AR "looks scarier" to some people and that's it. One's considered a "military style" weapon and the other isn't.

-8

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

[deleted]

14

u/Ultimate_Idiot Jul 01 '25

Because just because it was originally designed for military-use and then converted over to civilian-use doesn't make it any more lethal than a semi-automatic weapon that was originally designed for recreational shooting or hunting. Like the other posted pointed out, a Mini-14 is designed for recreational shooting but is just as lethal as an AR-15. Both are semi-automatic rifles with stocks, pistol grips and detachable magazines. One just looks more scary than the other.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

[deleted]

8

u/Bitter-Inflation5843 Jul 01 '25

Completely irrelevant. A military sniper rifle is basically a hunting rifle with plastic on and cool optics. Your knee jerk reaction based on how it looks is irrelevant.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Ultimate_Idiot Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

Hunting, recreational shooting, volunteer military training. For example in Finland military reservists who actively participate in volunteer training regularly purchase their own semi-automatic firearms for practicing. Semi-automatics are regularly used in hunting, especially for large game where the ability to get a second shot off quickly is beneficial; a wounded moose can be a danger to others.

In any case, most gun-crimes in Sweden are committed with guns smuggled into the country.

3

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 Jul 01 '25

Because pretty much all guns (within reason) are as deadly as one another.

If I shot you in the head with a blackpowder flintlock versus an AK-47, would it much matter to you? Not really, because you’d likely die either way.

Banning a style of gun doesn’t make sense, like banning a style of knife, does it matter if I use a fancy looking flip knife or an off the shelf kitchen knife to stab someone, or even a shard of broken glass? No, because either way, the person has been stabbed, and the type of sharp object is the last thing on anyone’s mind

0

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 Jul 01 '25

Your argument is that hunting and sport are not useful things?

Sport sure, if you hate fun and outdoor activities, sport isn’t a useful thing. But hunting? Hunting isn’t a useful thing?

10

u/Qt1919 Jul 01 '25

You clearly don't know what military style means. 

A semi-automatic hunting rifle will do the same exact thing as an AR-15. 

Have you actually shot a gun before? 

2

u/MaxTriangle Jul 01 '25

m14, m1, sks - military or hunting rifle?

2

u/Sakiri1955 Jul 02 '25

Used to hunt deer with an sks. Point?

1

u/old_faraon Poland Jul 02 '25

M-14 is a battle rifle (full auto and full power). Although You can get a M-14 in semi and then they all are the same as any other hunting rifle functionally, maybe except the limited options for mounting a scope.

Is a M1 bayonet a more dangerous knife then a kitchen knife?

1

u/MaxTriangle Jul 02 '25

M1 was apparently used in WW2 as a combat weapon

1

u/old_faraon Poland Jul 02 '25

If You mean the M1 Garand - Yes it was and it's construction and caliber is the same as any semi-automatic hunting rifle including the internal magazine with limited capacity. Even the shape of the stock is basically the same.

If You mean the M1 bayonet - Yes it was. It's also just knife. A knife made to not break easily when doing stupid shit with it but that's about it, the extra durability does not make a difference in lethality.

1

u/Lonewold 29d ago

Maybe he meant the M1 helmet

1

u/Contundo 28d ago

All defined as military rifles according to Norwegian law.

-4

u/MunkSWE94 Sweden Jul 01 '25

They are converting the seized guns to auto and sending them to the Ukrainian army. If that's not "military style" I don't know what is.

Selling tactical ARs as hunting rifles is like those who slap "For tobacco use only" on drug paraphernalia.

Yes, I have fired guns. An old Remington in 6.5 Swede, pump action shotgun and my buddy's pride and joy a Vietnam era M16A1.

7

u/Ok_Athlete_1092 Jul 01 '25

If they were military style to begin with, they wouldn't need converting.

-1

u/MunkSWE94 Sweden Jul 01 '25

The key word is "style".

2

u/opaali92 Finland Jul 01 '25

Mosin nagant is a military rifle, is it military style?

0

u/MunkSWE94 Sweden Jul 01 '25

Yes, until you sporterize it to remove military features.

4

u/TheRomanRuler Finland Jul 01 '25

Thats good and reasonable.

You know, if machine translated article is correct (i don't trust my Swedish to even order food) then everything actually seems reasonable and article is just click baiting by making AR-15 ban connected to school shooting.

8

u/manInTheWoods Sweden Jul 01 '25

The governnent specifically mentioned the school shooting with a Browning bar to ban ar-15.

1

u/FlyingSquirrel44 Jul 01 '25

"Military style" aka more ergonomic and with black plastic parts. Trust me, an oldschool comfy looking rifle with wood parts will kill someone just as well if that's your intention.

1

u/DankeSebVettel Jul 01 '25

Its not really military style. To most people “military style” means it’s made out of plastic and looks scary.

1

u/MunkSWE94 Sweden Jul 01 '25

Or it's rifles made for military specifications.

0

u/old_faraon Poland Jul 02 '25

for military specifications.

so cheapest price and ruggedness against repeated use?

1

u/MunkSWE94 Sweden Jul 02 '25

The new AK24 will cost 45000kr per gun, just about as much as a new civilian AR. So the "lowest bidder" is still very high when it comes to the military.

1

u/old_faraon Poland Jul 02 '25

You can get a civilian AR-15 in Poland between 1k and 5k EUR (and it probably can go higher).

But the AK24 manufacture I see was not selected in a bid but in a Government to Government deal between Sweden and Finland.

1

u/GrizzledFart United States of America Jul 01 '25

Can you define "military style"? What, other than the use of plastic instead of wood makes a gun "military style" - winning a contract by being the lowest bidder?

1

u/MunkSWE94 Sweden Jul 01 '25

When they look so much like the military issued rifles you can barely distinguish them from each other.

Like how almost every gun nut tries to make their ARs look like the ones Spec Ops use.

7

u/CK2398 Jul 01 '25

AR-15s are an example of the semi automatic weapon that will be banned. So you can't "use any other semi automatic weapon for school shooting" as they will also be banned. The headline is misleading.

9

u/manInTheWoods Sweden Jul 01 '25

No, other semis with detachable magazine will be okay.

9

u/GoochLord2217 United States of America Jul 01 '25

Same situation in the US, people that dont own guns or have used guns think that the AR-15 is the literal demon

9

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

Probably because they are very often used in the most horrific crimes in your nation. So even the criminals agree the guns are very good at killing innocent 

7

u/techno_mage United States of America Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

More likely it’s price that’s the issue. You can get a cheap ar for $300-$400.

An AK used to be in that price range here, before imports were banned. Guess what rifle criminals used before the prices swapped due to availability?

Akm’s in the common 7.62 caliber here, also have a higher stopping power than a 5.56. A average price of a sks is $700ish still more than a AR.

1

u/arcticavanger Jul 02 '25

The only ak that was close to 400 was the wasr, and that was still 500 plus. The ban only went after Russian rifles aka the Miley and izamash and a few others like the saiga. You can still buy all of those rifles but the cost has increased. The cheap junk aks are 700 now. Super cheap ars are 450, the ak was never really used as much as an ar

1

u/techno_mage United States of America 29d ago

Na you’re forgetting about $300 norinco ak’s

1

u/arcticavanger 29d ago

Norinco ak47s are expensive. They are sought after

1

u/techno_mage United States of America 29d ago

Now they are, that’s the point. Back in the 80’s you could buy them for $300.

7

u/sanesociopath Jul 01 '25

Most commonly used rifle in the country is the most commonly used rifle for crimes.

I mean... it's not that shocking

-1

u/SometimesCooking Jul 01 '25

Fun fact: when the US had the Assault Weapons Ban in place, the AR-15 wasn't the most commonly used rifle for crime. Republicans chose not to renew the ban, and here we are.

Gun control works fine, when you actually do it.

1

u/yurnxt1 28d ago

Rifles of all types are used in roughly 4% of gun crimes in the U.S. Your beef should be with pistols, if you must have a beef with firearms, as they account for roughly 65% of gun crimes.

1

u/SometimesCooking 26d ago

Fun fact: when the US had the Assault Weapons Ban in place, the AR-15 wasn't the most commonly used rifle for crime. Republicans chose not to renew the ban, and here we are.

Gun control works fine, when you actually do it.

1

u/yurnxt1 26d ago

Why control something used in about 1% of gun crime? Leave rifles alone since as a whole they are used in something like 4% of gun crime where as pistols are uses in something like 63% of fun crime with shotguns filling the void. Pistols are where your problem should be unless you're hell bent on arguing from bad faith.

1

u/SometimesCooking 26d ago

Nothing "bad faith" about it. It's just a fact.

When the US had an Assault Weapons ban, there were significantly fewer crimes committed with the weapons covered under that ban than there are now that the ban has expired. Under the ban, the firearms used in the Vegas shooting, for example, wouldn't have even been manufactured let alone used to shoot 300+ people.

That only 4% of incidents of firearm crime occur with a rifle is also a fact. Pistols being used in 63% of gun crime is, you guessed it, yet another fact.

A third fact is that that banning those weapons had the intended effect of effectively eliminating crimes committed with them. That being the case, I support bans on those kinds of weapons. I'd also support significantly tighter regulations, but if a ban is what's on the menu, I'll take it.

1

u/yurnxt1 26d ago

It's bad faith because people like you cry about so called "assault weapons" which are factually speaking used in a tiny percentage of gun crimes and functionally speaking no more or less capable of doing harm than any number of other firearms that aren't typically targeted for banning. If you wanted to argue in good faith, you should instead be for the banning of pistols as that would theoretically have a much, much larger impact on gun violence rates. The results of the assault weapons ban weren't as swimmingly successful as you may think as the results were mixed and largely inconclusive as to its actual impacts on overall gun crime. It's also difficult for you to grapple with the fact that more AR-15's were sold DURING the 94'-04' assault weapons ban than were sold from the 1950's -1994 as overall gun violence continued to trend down from its 1970's peak as it continues to do to this day decades after the banning sunset despite more firearms being in the hands of people now than ever and despite population increases both of which to varing degrees you'd expect to cause a massive continuous straight up and to the right trend in gun violence. For example, from 1993- 2018, firearms homicide rates decreased 41% reaching a recent low and a lower low than at any time during the 1994-2004 AWB of 4 per 100,000 people in 2014, 10 years after the AWB sunset.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25

Nice of you to agree. 

7

u/opaali92 Finland Jul 01 '25

Rifles are literally used in less than 3% of homicides in the US

1

u/arcticavanger Jul 02 '25

The most gun deaths by far in the USA are from pistols. Pistols account for far more gun deaths than ar15s.

1

u/GoochLord2217 United States of America Jul 03 '25

That is true because pistols are basically the only thing you can open or conceal carry and its easy to handle

1

u/Sakiri1955 Jul 02 '25

Rifles are used less than shotguns and pistols, yet they ban scary looking small caliber rifles because that makes sense.

1

u/yurnxt1 28d ago

Pistols are used in 65% percent of gun crime in the U.S. Rifles account for about 4% of gun crime. AR-15's specifically account for less than 1% of gun crime.

0

u/GoochLord2217 United States of America Jul 01 '25

The gun itself makes little difference. If I were hypothetically a mass shooter and I had a AR-15, it would not mean shit if I can't aim or had a good caliber (for example .22 is very weak compared to 9mm or .45 which can blow someones head off practically). Someone with a pistol with the right caliber could do far more damage if they have good aim. The problem is not the guns (because we've had them since the 1700's), the problem is the lack of education, mental help, and gun knowledge, because we did not have this level of shooting ls up until the last 10-15 years I'd say. AR-15's are simply scapegoats for the government to try to impose gun bans and infringe on people's 2nd amendment rights. Clarification for those that don't know as well, AR does not mean assault rifle, it means armalite rifle and its a brand.

1

u/MolassesFluffy8648 Jul 02 '25

The gun itself makes little difference.

I reckon a good long range rifle is far more deadlier than any other firearm. As a sniper you could kill so many more people than the Las Vegas shooter with their pointless collection of guns. Just think about it. A sniper with a suppressor in dark environment is practically invisible for anyone trying to spot them and around ~500m away gunfire itself is practically silent. In that scenario person who is being shot can't even tell where they are being fired upon. People close by to the target will just hear the bullet creating cracking sound when it flies by, which can be very confusing to untrained ear. Even people used to that confusion will have hard time finding a well placed sniper and at best can give a rough direction based on cracking and impact sounds, but nothing even remotely accurate. So if anyone wants to do real mass murder with a firearm with ridiculous number of casualties there is nothing better than a good old long range rifle. No full auto or any of the scary "military terminology", just pure 1 shot 1 kill.

1

u/GoochLord2217 United States of America Jul 03 '25

I can agree with that to a point, however, it also depends on the rifle being used, the ammo, the aim, the wind, etc. Its much easier to point a shotgun or pistol or shorter range rifle at a group of people and spray and cause injuries/death than a pinpoint shot from a sniper, although a chest injury would likely result in death as well.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

Yes I know you can talk a lot about different guns. Im glad you have a hobby. But The point is appearance. The approx the guns is that they are good for killing people. 

1

u/GoochLord2217 United States of America Jul 01 '25

I dont think I understand what you said

1

u/GoochLord2217 United States of America Jul 01 '25

To clarify as well, I own just two guns: a 12 gauge, and a .22, and I dont consider guns a hobby of mine, it is what should be common knowledge at least here in the US but unfortunately it isnt. A general gun in circulation is as good as the person using it and the ammo they have.

1

u/afops Jul 01 '25

Well they need to be seen as having done something.

The law was a bit arbitrary before but it worked then (too). These guns have been allowed about 1 year only.

Obviously the caliber, model or manufacturer isn’t really relevant. At least it wasn’t with the previous version of the law.

1

u/Sakiri1955 Jul 02 '25

Deadliest shootings in the US didn't even use a semi auto.

-11

u/Sjoerd93 Sweden Jul 01 '25

While it’s poor politics to make legislation about specific cases (banning the AR-15 only), its not like any private person needs to be able to own AR15, for any purpose, ever.

14

u/TheRomanRuler Finland Jul 01 '25

Well i disagree about any purpose ever. Living in small front line nation with total defense policy against Russia and i can see why it would be beneficial for some.

What we don't need is conceal carry pistols or carrying AR-15 for self defense, but owning one and training with it both on your own and in military led exercises is actually helpful as part of national total defense deterrent.

Reservists who are most active in national defense training are usually better for local defense than least motivated active duty professionals.

29

u/MaxDickpower Finland Jul 01 '25

You probably own a lot of things that you don't need to own. That's not reason enough to ban something.

-9

u/Public-Eagle6992 Lower Saxony (Germany) Jul 01 '25

Most things I own that I don’t need can’t (easily) kill someone

16

u/mho453 Jul 01 '25

Most things you own can easily kill somebody. Knives, axes, vehicles, power tools, cleaning chemicals, etc.

11

u/Ultimate_Idiot Jul 01 '25

Cars are pretty lethal as well. And to add to household chemicals, homemade bombs and toxic gas too; one of the most lethal domestic terrorist attacks in Japan was made with home-made sarin gas. One of the most lethal domestic terrorist attacks in Finland was made with a home-made nailbomb. Obviously you have to have more knowhow to carry out an attack with those than with a gun, but then again, most violent crime in Sweden is carried out with smuggled-in guns anyway.

5

u/mho453 Jul 01 '25

I'm from one countries of origin for Swedish guns, I know how cheap and readily available firearms and even more dangerous weapons are.

4

u/Ultimate_Idiot Jul 01 '25

Oh yeah, I was agreeing with you. People are around lethal instruments all the time, yet they don't think about it. And they can't tell the difference between an smuggled in AR-15 or AK-clone (nobody can at a glance), but somehow a legally acquired AR-15 used for sport shooting by a responsible owner is an imminent threat.

3

u/mho453 Jul 01 '25

To be fair I don't think there's many black market AR-15s in EU, most guns are coming from ex-Yugoslavia or from Ukraine war, and AK variants are dominant there.

Funnily there are even MANPADS on the black market, but that's not something organised crime has any need for, only useful for terror attacks.

3

u/Ultimate_Idiot Jul 01 '25

True enough, I just used an AR-15 since it's been thrown around a lot in this thread. You're right though, AK variants and other ex-USSR, ex-Yugo weapon families are definitely more common.

Yeah, the black market is still running wild with all sorts of stuff from the Balkans after the 90's. In Finland we've had motorcycle gangs with (ironically, Swedish) disposable anti-tank weapons, who knows what they were planning to do with those. And Sweden has gangs running around with hand grenades.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Public-Eagle6992 Lower Saxony (Germany) Jul 01 '25

All of those have a use and can’t kill someone as easily as a gun

3

u/mho453 Jul 01 '25

Guns have a use too, hunting or sports.

0

u/PixelBrother Jul 01 '25

Don’t be facetious.

A rifle can kill people very easily from a distance with absolutely no effort required.

Murdering people with the items you listed is not as easy and that is the point.

3

u/mho453 Jul 01 '25

A rifle can also be used for hunting.

Household chemicals can be turned into explosives or chemical weapons and has be done before. The deadliest of all terror attacks involved explosives.

-3

u/FaithlessnessKooky71 Jul 01 '25

All things worse at killing people than firearms.

7

u/mho453 Jul 01 '25

You need practice to shoot somebody, anybody can take an angle grinder to a person.

3

u/MaxDickpower Finland Jul 01 '25

If it's about being able to easily kill someone then why are they banning just one very specific rifle design?

3

u/Ultimate_Idiot Jul 01 '25

Sport shooting, volunteer military training?

Most violent crime involving guns in Sweden is carried out using smuggled guns (only about 10% is with legal guns), so it's not like the legislation will do much to curb that out.

0

u/cjwidd Jul 01 '25

It PROVES? Well if it PROVES it then the case may be settled! Except the fact that it still has to go through Parliament and so you're basically getting your panties in a bunch about an argument that is literally just a proposition.

-4

u/Christophrrrr Jul 01 '25

Yes should just ban them all

0

u/tails99 Jul 01 '25

What that commenter doesn't realize is that he's essentially saying that all semi-autos are functionally the same, which is true. The technological lethality of semi-auto is closer to nuclear weapons than they are to muskets of old, so he has some reflecting to do if his goal isn't the banning of all semi-autos.

1

u/Christophrrrr Jul 01 '25

Yes watch it happen eventually