Mass shootings – especially school shootings - are rare in Sweden. On February 4th, 2025, the country experienced the “worst mass shooting in Swedish history” in the city of Örebro. A gunman opened fire at Campus Risbergska, an adult education centre, killing ten individuals and injuring six others before turning the gun on himself. As Sweden mourns, authorities are slowly revealing information about the shooting and perpetrator, leaving many with more questions than answers.
John Johansson, chairman of Örebro’s municipal board, was interviewed by The Associated Press in the aftermath. He stated, “We are still asking questions of why, still wondering what has happened”, followed by, “This is not a Swedish problem, it’s a problem that we have seen throughout the world”.
Perhaps Johansson’s phrasing was meant to be neutral. The statement is accurate after all - mass shootings have occurred in all corners of the globe. But if mass shootings aren’t Sweden’s problem, then it’s clear whose problem they really are.
Mass shootings – especially school shootings – are more common in America. Due to a breadth of challenges, mass shooting incidence rates are subject to much debate. Though mass shootings are rare in comparison to other types of violence (gun-related or otherwise), one thing is clear. America leads the world in mass shooting events.
What has the U.S. done about their mass shooting problem? It’s hard to say. There’s a familiar cycle that follows mass shootings in the U.S. – shock and horror, outrage, anger, and “thoughts and prayers”. The latter has been heavily critiqued in recent years and now serves as a rallying point for those demanding change. Many argue the phrase has been hollowed from excessive use. The frequency in which the words are offered has diluted their effect. Rather than “thoughts and prayers”, many long for some sort of tangible change.
Mass shooting events often re-spark gun control debates. It is not uncommon to see minor reform after an incident occurs within a particular state, though results vary widely across the country. Just months after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, Connecticut enacted substantial reform to its gun legislation by banning high-capacity magazines (like those used in the shooting) and introducing background checks for the sale of all firearms. After the 2023 shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee’s House Republicans passed a bill allowing teachers to conceal carry in their schools.
While some bills are successfully passed, wider firearm reform often remains deadlocked. On a day-to-day basis, legislative change (if successful) can be slow to actualise. Beyond the trickle of reform however, increased security measures are one very visible aftereffect of a mass shooting incident. Panic buttons, armed guards, metal detectors, and classroom locks are regular features across the country. Securitising schools is big business. The education private security sector is valued at over $3-billion. Yet, whether these measures actually aid in curbing shootings is widely speculated. While tangible safety measures such as these can help minimise harm in an active shooting incident, what is being done to prevent the shooting from occurring in the first place?
Experts have suggested that it is essential for schools to increase mental health support for students in crisis. Schools are being urged to become better at intervening with and managing at-risk and isolated students. While it is all very sensible, the logistical challenges of implementing such support are immense, not to mention the sheer volume of resources and funding needed. In fact, it is difficult to find clear examples of schools increasing support and intervention services in this way. Increasing security is more attainable and can also provide some with a visible and tangible sense of doing something. For now, it looks like securitisation is here to stay.
Educational spaces in Sweden are quite different from their American counterparts. Minister of Education Johan Pehrson described schools in Sweden as relatively open spaces. So far, Sweden’s approach to violence in schools has predominately focused on intervention and prevention. This approach has generally been quite successful. More broadly, Sweden is often hailed as a success in its P/CVE strategies. Shortly after the shooting in Örebro however, Pehrson stated that security must be increased in schools across the country.
So, what’s next for Sweden? Will the intervention/prevention-driven approach continue to be prioritised? Will there be a push for gun reform? Sweden has very restrictive gun laws in comparison to the U.S. But, it also has some of the highest ownership rates and gun deaths in comparison other E.U. nations. Perhaps the Örebro shooting will be the catalyst to further review its regulations. Or perhaps, as hinted by the Minister of Education, we will see a securitisation of educational spaces. However, securitising schools are not without drawbacks. Pehrson did note, “We want schools to remain accessible places that offer new opportunities”. Striking a balance between accessibility and security is certainly no small task. While mass shootings often reveal serious lapses in security measures that should be rightfully addressed, one wonders how a securitised learning environment affects students.
Will Sweden continue in its strive for preventive intervention, or we will it move towards securitisation? Or perhaps both? As the investigation continues, we await Sweden’s response to this tragic event.
Grace Johnson is a PhD Candidate in Politics and International Relations, researching mass shootings, radicalisation, and terrorism. She is also the Doctoral Representative for the School of Social Science. To read a recent work of hers, please see here.
