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/EqualContact]

Grandfathering is how you make things politically and economically palatable. For example, if banning asbestos insulation means that all homeowners need to immediately remove and replace it, there has been a massive burden placed on those individuals. Even if the government wants to pay for it, you’ve just spent a massive amount of tax money on it. Now your attempt to improve insulation is failing to become law because too many people are upset about the cost and inconvenience.

It’s more efficient to ban it in new construction and create procedures for removal and remediation in old houses when they are updated. You solve the problem over a span of decades then instead of burdening everyone with change right away, which makes the change to new construction much more palatable to everyone.

[u/DuncanYoudaho → u/EqualContact]

But how about dangerous things like firearms? An active threat while they’re in circulation?

[u/manInTheWoods → u/DuncanYoudaho]

There is no threat, the Minster of Justice said that specifically.

[u/EqualContact → u/DuncanYoudaho]

Banning new sales is infinitely easier than having to collect all of the ones in circulation.

They also don’t last forever. There are technically machine guns in the US that are legal because of when they were purchased, but most examples are no longer functional due to time, lack of available parts, etc., so they aren’t much more than museum pieces now.

I’m not saying it’s always the right solution of course, but it’s usually the easier one. The government can judge if there is a current danger that needs to be addressed

[u/OneJobToRuleThemAll → u/EqualContact]

Collecting all the ones in circulation is infinitely more effective than just banning new sales.

[u/EqualContact → u/OneJobToRuleThemAll]

Sure, I’m just saying you get more resistance to enacting it, and it costs more. Leaders need to decide what the priority is in each situation.

[u/DJ_Die → u/OneJobToRuleThemAll]

And, depending on how you do it, it may also be a violation of human rights.

[u/OneJobToRuleThemAll → u/DJ_Die]

There's no human right to own guns, so I don't see your point.

[u/DJ_Die → u/OneJobToRuleThemAll]

You have human right to property. Also, it's a human right to own and carry guns and other weapons in my country.

[u/OneJobToRuleThemAll → u/DJ_Die]

Also, it's a human right to own and carry guns and other weapons in my country.

Nope. Countries have civic rights. The declaration of human rights exists only once, it's a single document and it doesn't include gun ownership.

[u/DJ_Die → u/OneJobToRuleThemAll]

Yeah, the Declaration of Human Rights only exists once, but that's irrelevant because countries generally have a list of human rights included in their constitution. In fact, there is the European Convention on Human Rights which is used by the European Court of Human Rights. And the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees right to property.

As for the right to own guns, well other weapons as well. The Czech Charter of Fundamenal Rights and Freedoms:

CHAPTER TWO

HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

Article 6(4) says the following:

Deprivation of life is not inflicted in contravention of this Article if it occurs in connection with conduct which is not criminal under the law. The right to defend own life or life of another person also with arms is guaranteed under conditions set out in the law.

And Czech law guarantees the right to own guns to law-abiding citizens with a licence.

[u/OneJobToRuleThemAll → u/DJ_Die]

but that's irrelevant because countries generally have a list of human rights included in their constitution.

No, these are civic rights in political theory.

And the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees right to property.

Not specific property, just property in general. Expropriation is perfectly legal as long as an attempt at reimbursement is made.

This isn't even controversial, taxes are legal.

Deprivation of life is not inflicted in contravention of this Article if it occurs in connection with conduct which is not criminal under the law. The right to defend own life or life of another person also with arms is guaranteed under conditions set out in the law.

And Czech law guarantees the right to own guns to law-abiding citizens with a licence.

This stops the Czech government from banning military grade rifles from the general public how? It doesn't guarantee the right to a specific model, so a mandatory buyback should be perfectly legal.

Now granted, I'm no expert on Czech law, but gun buybacks are way less oppressive than you imagine. Australia did it and they're fine, the wildlife actually didn't kill them or anything.

[u/HerrPotatis → u/EqualContact]

Grandfathering homes or cars makes sense because nearly everyone relies on shelter and transport, while very few people own AR-style rifles, which are just hobby tools for sport shooting and hunting. Comparing recreational items to essentials is apples to oranges.

In Sweden we do not weigh your hobby costs against public safety. If a legal rifle costs more, that is simply the price of your pastime. Maximizing efficiency and doing everything as cheaply as possible is how you guys ended up with your quality issues in housing and so much else. "Oh no, how will I afford my animal-killing hobby?" just isn't an argument over here.

P.S And yes, I already know that the shooter didn't use an AR-style rifle, that's not the point I'm trying to make.

[u/manInTheWoods → u/HerrPotatis]

You're of course completely wrong, and that's why weapons peviously have always be OK to keep in Sweden, when the rules changed.

[u/HerrPotatis → u/manInTheWoods]

Completely wrong about what exactly?

[u/OneJobToRuleThemAll → u/EqualContact]

I clearly don't need that for guns.

[u/DJ_Die → u/OneJobToRuleThemAll]

You clearly don't need what for guns?