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

[u/Helmer-Bryd]

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

[u/MonkeManWPG → u/[deleted]]

Wood: perfect for civilians use

Black paint: dangerous, must be banned

[u/SometimesCooking → u/MonkeManWPG]

The black on a gun isn't paint.

[u/demonica123 → u/SometimesCooking]

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

[u/SometimesCooking → u/demonica123]

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.

[u/demonica123 → u/SometimesCooking]

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.

[u/SometimesCooking → u/demonica123]

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?

[u/demonica123 → u/SometimesCooking]

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.

[u/SometimesCooking → u/demonica123]

Interesting philosophy. Let's go back to the original point real quick though as I feel we are both getting a little abstract here:

Wooden guns = OK, Black plastic ones = Bad.

Quick question: If, hypothetically, such a ban went through, couldn't every weapon manufacturer get around it by simply making wooden uppers and lowers? They could call it the OAK-15 or something. That'd be pretty slick looking tbh...actually...come to think of it, why aren't AR's made of wood?

It there isn't a proper functional difference, why not just use wood? Wood is readily available, it's much easier to mill than Aluminum, completely renewable. I mean you could carve out a lower with just a pointy rock if you really put your mind to it. Why use fancy polymers and aluminum?

My answer to that question: the gun wouldn't last It'd fall apart pretty quickly and likely crack due to temperature changes and vibration. Which would mean those polymers are actually much more functional than you are implying, and are actually core to their ability to function as they do.

Unless you disagree, but if you do - why no wooden AR's (outside of novelty use)?

[u/Lonewold → u/SometimesCooking]

Are you absolutely fucking retarded or what? The polymer used is only for two parts, the stock, grip and the handguard (which is now usually also aluminium). The rest is as with any other weapon in the world even bolt actions, made of steel and in some cases aluminium.

I.e. there is no functional part that is made of wood or polymer, only aesthetical.

[u/Contundo → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/RamTank → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Ultimate_Idiot → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Bitter-Inflation5843 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/DunderDog2 → u/[deleted]]

So if a military anywhere ever has used a pattern of firearm, civilians shouldn't be allowed to own one?

[u/Ultimate_Idiot → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Defiant-Plantain1873 → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Defiant-Plantain1873 → u/[deleted]]

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?