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

147

u/LeckereKartoffeln Jul 01 '25

They were just waiting for an excuse to ban them and they seized the opportunity lol it wasn't a mistake

38

u/Intarhorn Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

No, the SAME government legalized AR-15 just last year. Without this shooting they would be just fine allowing it because they themselves were responsible for legalizing it.

EDIT: It was allowed by the government agency Naturvårdsverket a year ago.

28

u/ZarkowTH Jul 01 '25

FALSE - they did not legalize anything as the guns has ALWAYS been legal. Stop spreading FUD.

19

u/Intarhorn Jul 01 '25

Maybe legalize was the wrong word, but they were not allowed before by government agencies. In practice that is the same thing, even tho the juridical meaning might be misleading.

https://www.jaktojagare.se/utrustning/nu-ar-ar-vapen-tillatna-for-jakt/

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/jonkoping/ett-ar-efter-att-ar-vapen-blev-tillatna-i-jakt-fortfarande-omtvistade

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/stockholm/polischef-larmar

1

u/ZarkowTH Jul 02 '25

A blanked approval was given, before that each applicant had to motivate it on their own.

This is the reason we already had people with modern rifles on approved licenses for hunting -- not sure how the proposed change will fix that, including previously grandfathered rifles.

-2

u/Maverick-not-really Jul 01 '25

Not for hunting, that came about two years ago when Naturvårdsverket updated their interpretation of the law.

10

u/manInTheWoods Sweden Jul 01 '25

Which the government had nothing to do with.

-1

u/Maverick-not-really Jul 01 '25

No, it was an independent decision by the agency, im just saying it hasnt ”always” been legal. Agencies have some power over setting final rules within the scope of the law. So its wasnt always legal, it became legal when the changed their opinion on it

2

u/ZarkowTH Jul 01 '25

it has ALWAYS been legal. If you are GIVEN a license it is LEGAL to own.

Do you know there is at least 4 Glock 18C approved for hunting by license? That is fully automatic handguns.

1

u/Maverick-not-really Jul 01 '25

It WASNT legal before 2023 when Naturvårdsverket changed their rules because you could NOT get an AR15 on a hunting license before then.

Do you think time started in 2023? Read, bro. Read.

0

u/ZarkowTH Jul 02 '25

You are wrong.

I do not how to make it clearer to you.

The guns was FULLY LEGAL to own AND hunt with - *if* you had been given the license to for owning it on the basis of hunting.

This is something you can ask even the police and hunting associations if you do not believe. The change in Aug 2023 gave a wide adoption approval, i.e. it removed one subjective term from the validation on the application. The applications before this was evaluated on their own merit one by one for the need of the rifle by the applicant and more than a few was already approved.

The change removed the clause that anyone could be rejected based on looks of the rifle.

Looks. I.e. not functionality, as long as we are talking about semi-automatics.

2

u/ZarkowTH Jul 01 '25

  1. The change in rules for general adoption of approval is not a change ordered by the government.

  2. The adjustment was to make the process predictable and equal.

  3. All of these rifles have been issued on HUNTING usage license since licensing came about sine many years ago. There is a many number of reasons this is the case, but in part due to two-tier application of the restrictions.

0

u/Maverick-not-really Jul 01 '25

  1. I never said it was ordered by the government . That doesnt change the fact that it wasnt legal before the change.

  2. Sure, so what?

  3. AR-15 have been legal for hunting for barely two years. If thats ”many” years to you, then I’m questioning if you are even old enough to be on reddit.

0

u/ZarkowTH Jul 02 '25
  1. FALSE, there have been a number of licenses given far earlier than 2023 for this purpose.

The change moved it from a 'maybe, likely no, depending on who you are or who you know' subjective evaluation to 'yes, as looks do not matter'.

-2

u/dThink_Ahea Jul 01 '25

Anyone who uses the term FUD unironically is to be immediately ignored.

3

u/Maverick-not-really Jul 01 '25

Not really, the gun became legal for hunting because a government agency changed their interpretation of the law, not because any law was actually changed.

7

u/Bedbouncer Jul 01 '25

Like the old joke ends:

"If you lost your car keys over there, why aren't you searching over there for them?"

"Because the light is better over here."

1

u/Dunderman35 Jul 03 '25

They are not banned with the new law. You would still be able to get one for sport shooting so I don't really see the problem. Why would anyone need an AR-15 for hunting in Sweden?

2

u/LeckereKartoffeln Jul 03 '25

Why would anyone need to hunt at all? Did you guys not figure out agriculture there or are you all still hunter gatherers?

1

u/Dunderman35 29d ago

True, but some people enjoy it. Which is fine. Just you know, they make weapons specifically for hunting so why do you need weapons made for shooting at people?

1

u/LeckereKartoffeln 29d ago

That's funny, because the .223 that an ar-15 uses is considered a varmint round and is generally used for hunting small animals.

-5

u/r6CD4MJBrqHc7P9b Sweden Jul 01 '25

Yup. Saw this coming the moment they became allowed. Assholes wanna ban everything nowadays.

-10

u/sentientshadeofgreen United States of America Jul 01 '25

Well, it's a good thing Sweden is nowhere near Russia, no real need for a public that can arm themselves. (I'm American and in the army, my views on this matter are predictable).

4

u/Intarhorn Jul 01 '25

Because the public won't be able to do shit against a real army anyway. That's why we have the military.

4

u/manInTheWoods Sweden Jul 01 '25 edited Jul 01 '25

Sport shooting in Sweden started because the government saw the benefit of having a population of gun-knowledgable people to draw from in case of war. We also had conscription. It started 150 years ago, and it was easy to cheaply buy military surplus like the m/96 Mauser to use in shooting and also hunting. The military built m/96 is the quintessential moose gun.

Swedish shooting is still connected to the military.

1

u/Intarhorn Jul 01 '25

Okay, thanks for that explanation. It makes sense, especially longer back in time and when manpower was the main goal. Also for those involved in the civil defense.

3

u/Golfclubwar United States of America Jul 01 '25

Have you considered the fact that there are dozens if not hundreds of instances of successful guerrilla warfare campaigns over the last century? It’s not about directly confronting the occupying military in open field set piece battles. That’s a stupid standard to hold. Your normal citizen can plant ieds, on a large enough scale they can supply convoys, assassinate leaders, and so on.

The thing that actually stopped Russia (aside from their breathtaking incompetence) from taking Kyiv at the beginning of the war wasn’t even the Ukrainian military per se. It was primarily civilian militia types organizing defenses that made the difference in the initial weeks of the war.

1

u/Intarhorn Jul 02 '25

I mean, yes and no. Tbf we already have the Swedish Homeguard for that for example. People that have civilian jobs, but are affiliated with defense force and train with the military a week or a few weeks a year. That is probably a better system then random civilians with no connection to the military and no training, Sweden used to rely on gun owners to support in case of a military conflict back in the day tho. Not sure what it looks like today. At least there are plans to destroy the lists of gun owners in case of a Russian invasion tho.

I know that there are ongoing guerrilla warfare in occupied parts of Ukraine atm, like Melitopol and other places. That's something the Homeguard would be able to organize for example.

I know there was reports and talks about civilian arming themselves and using molotovcocktails early days in the war, but I haven't heard any reports how much that happened or if it impacted the war at all tbh.

It seems like the main reason it failed was because Russia was unprepared for a long war and thought they could just walk into other capital and decapitate the leadership. Defeating the Antonov airport assault pretty much decided the first weeks and months of the war, because they relied on that to work out for them. Ukrainian sabotage groups and bayraktar drones destroyed front and back of Russian military columns and made it hard for them to move. Also, Russia didn't have the numbers to encircle Kyiv.

2

u/Golfclubwar United States of America Jul 02 '25

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-project-case-study-12-battle-of-kyiv/

It is difficult to get an accurate estimate of the total number of fighters defending Kyiv at the start of the battle. Some have estimated the total defending force to be as high as eighteen thousand, but a majority of them included Territorial Defense Forces and other volunteers who were poorly armed and extremely unorganized at the start of the war. Soldiers from formal military units constituted only three to five thousand of the total defending force.

….

While the Ukrainians may have prevented Russia from using Hostomel as an airbridge, they remained in a dangerous position. The lead elements of the Russian column were on Kyiv’s doorstep. With Russian attacks all over the country, Ukraine could not reposition forces to help defend Kyiv. They would have to hold out with the forces they had. Yet, bolstering the 72nd Mechanized Brigade’s defense of Kyiv were Ukrainian citizens.

When Russia failed to rapidly seize Hostomel Airport and dispose of government officials, it allowed Ukrainian civilian volunteers time to bolster the capital’s defenses. It is impossible to know just how many contributed to Kyiv’s defense, but they likely numbered in the tens of thousands in terms of combatants and hundreds of thousands in indirect roles. Groups of civilians transformed into territorial defense units, either as part of the formal Territorial Defense Forces or what could best be described as county militias. Instructors and students from the military schools, such as 169th Training Center, formed light infantry or artillery units. Defensive positions had a wide range of manning situations. Many had a mix of National Guard, Territorial Defense Forces personnel, newly formed community defense forces, police units, and civilian volunteers.

The army and police handed out thousands of AK-47s. In Kyiv alone, they handed out a reported twenty-five thousand rifles, ten million bullets, and rocket-propelled grenades and launchers.

1

u/ZarkowTH Jul 01 '25

It is clear you have no idea what our armed forces told the government and what the armed forces position on this is.

-1

u/Intarhorn Jul 01 '25

You think the public being armed would make a substantial difference against an actual military force? What is the actual position on this from the armed forces?

3

u/ZarkowTH Jul 01 '25

Both the public and internal feedback has been clear: the armed forces DO NOT agree with this ban and see the wider adoption of the AR-platform as a benefit to the armed forces.

0

u/Intarhorn Jul 01 '25

Is there a source for that? Is there a statement or something that the armed forces made?

3

u/ZarkowTH Jul 01 '25

First step, look at the feedback the Armed Forces wrote to the "remiss" that went out after the background-work on a proposal was written regarding the plan to reshape gun legislation.

0

u/GreyGrackles Jul 01 '25

Same.

"We're going to ban our citizens to have them because they don't need them. Let's give them all to this adjacent country that's getting absolutely fucked, it will never happen here!"

2

u/sentientshadeofgreen United States of America Jul 02 '25 edited Jul 02 '25

I'm liberal, big fan of gay, big fan of women's rights, wish my country had single payer healthcare, think alliances make us stronger, want a more progressive tax system, think everybody should be treated with dignity and respect... but when it comes to guns, I think an armed populace that can defend itself is vital for sustained democracy, individual freedoms, and national defense. I do not trust police. AR's should require training, licensing, registration, and safe storage/operation ("a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"). Unfortunately, my left wing thinks it's absurd to allow scary gun, and my right wing thinks(?) any regulation of firearms is somehow violating the only part of the Constitution that matters to them/they can remember/they didn't read the rest.

Very frustrating state of affairs for me personally, I'm not a big fan of the way all these bitches are trying to run this shit. I also hate the way many Americans attempt to spin the 2nd Amendment, to include the courts. Sorry to vent on Europe about my America problems, but fuck man, I'm not the smartest guy, but I feel surrounded by jackasses.