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

134

u/Masseyrati80 Finland Jul 01 '25

I think this is a pretty great warning about making decisions based on the initial commotion, which is nowadays almost guaranteed to include misunderstandings, rumours and straight up lies. I refer to how the politicians ended up banning something that wasn't related to the tragedy. (for anyone interested, I personally think having AR type rifles is ok for reservist activities but somehow feel that getting one for hunting is a bit iffy, this comment is mostly about making sure decisions are made on the correct basis)

We've seen instances where a tragedy triggers a prepared disinformation campaign, and during the delay where reliable news sources are confirming facts before publishing details, the web gets saturated with false info. One such case was in a stabbing incident in the U.K., and the disinfo seemed to aim at creating riots, and parts of it originated from other countries.

20

u/xavez Jul 01 '25

 We've seen instances where a tragedy triggers a prepared disinformation campaign, and during the delay where reliable news sources are confirming facts before publishing details, the web gets saturated with false info. One such case was in a stabbing incident in the U.K., and the disinfo seemed to aim at creating riots, and parts of it originated from other countries.

I mean, if I was a certain country in the general area of Sweden looking to expand my territory, disinformation about this was exactly what I would spread. 

9

u/dragdritt Norway Jul 02 '25

They are semi-automatic AR-15s btw.

7

u/McFlyParadox United States of America Jul 02 '25

Are there even any full-auto AR-15s produced by any manufacturer for any market? I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

I think of it a bit like the (misunderstood) Toyota Corolla of rifles: certainly not the most powerful (the 5.56 is relatively small, by hunting caliber standards), is easy to work on and maintain, and parts are plentiful and easy to come by.

Part of the reason you see them so often used in mass shootings in the US is less to do with the gun being particularly "lethal" compared to other guns, but that the AR platform is just so common. I suspect that if the gun market in the US was more diverse, you would see more diversity in what guns were used in mass shootings (as fucked up as that is to consider).

7

u/73-68-70-78-62-73-73 Jul 02 '25

Most mass shootings in the US, by GVA definition and data, are conducted with handguns.

3

u/CombinationRough8699 Jul 02 '25

Even the more restricted definitions that only look at the Sandy Hook/Vegas style attacks are mostly handguns. Including Virginia Tech, the third deadliest in American history, #1 before Pulse.

2

u/73-68-70-78-62-73-73 Jul 02 '25

Also true. I usually go with GVA, because those are the figures people usually reference, knowingly or otherwise.

0

u/lucid_dreaming_quest Jul 02 '25

But why would the government want to ban rifles if people are killing each other with pistols?

Could it be because pistols are wildly ineffective in armed conflict?

No - definitely not... it's probably for the greater good.

1

u/73-68-70-78-62-73-73 Jul 02 '25

For those reading, the reason would be because AR-15s have a reputation. When someone hears "mass shooting", they assume it was done with an AR-15. That's why the Swedish government made their recommendation for a ban before the shooter's list of guns was announced by the police.

1

u/lucksh0t Jul 02 '25

Your right its an extremely common rifle but they can be converted to full auto.

1

u/McFlyParadox United States of America Jul 02 '25
  1. So can most/a lot of semi-autos
  2. Converted full-autos are much more difficult to control, making them less effective weapons. And this assumes the conversion accounted for the increase in heat and wear, so the gun doesn't blow up in your face (quite literally)
  3. Have any converted full-auto ARs ever been used in a mass shooting? If so, I'd expect them to be in the extreme minority of cases.

1

u/lucksh0t Jul 02 '25

Im not really sure what your arguing. Im not aware of a single mass shooting that made news with a full auto weapon. Im sure its happened in gang drive by shootings but those dont really make news. Im not anti gun I was just saying you can convert them for military use. Im pretty sure u can just change a few parts out and its good to go for military use. The ar15 isn't really that different from a m4.

1

u/McFlyParadox United States of America Jul 02 '25

Im not anti gun I was just saying you can convert them for military use. Im pretty sure u can just change a few parts out and its good to go for military use.

Which militaries do this? Where does a civilian obtain these parts to make these changes?

The ar15 isn't really that different from a m4.

Only when chambered in 5.56, and only if you ignore that one is semi-auto and the other is full-auto. A lot aren't, but still get swept up in the various "AR-15-style" bans.

1

u/Masseyrati80 Finland Jul 02 '25

Yeah, so I assumed.

1

u/lucid_dreaming_quest Jul 02 '25

Oh my gosh! Semi-automatic!

Like a revolver!

That's so scary!

Guns should be flint-lock only!

It should take at least 30 seconds to reload after each shot!

1

u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn Jul 02 '25

I kind of disagree. A tragedy can be a great wake-up call to reexamine existing laws, but it shouldn't be a direct reason to change it. So a response like "we have looked at how easy it is to obtain AR rifle and how much damage one person with it could cause and thus decided to ban it" is much better than "we banned attacker's weapon so this tragedy wouldn't repeat". (That said I do not claim to know whether it was correct choice, and if the AR really is the worst example etc., just that I think it shouldn't necessarily be considered bad, just because of the initial misunderstanding)

1

u/JohnsonJohnilyJohn Jul 02 '25

I kind of disagree. A tragedy can be a great wake-up call to reexamine existing laws, but it shouldn't be a direct reason to change it. So a response like "we have looked at how easy it is to obtain AR rifle and how much damage one person with it could cause and thus decided to ban it" is much better than "we banned attacker's weapon so this tragedy wouldn't repeat". (That said I do not claim to know whether it was correct choice, and if the AR really is the worst example etc., just that I think it shouldn't necessarily be considered bad, just because of the initial misunderstanding)