By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A gunman in Cetinje, Montenegro, fatally shot twelve people, including two children, before killing himself, resulting in a national tragedy. The incident, following a bar brawl, prompted Prime Minister Milojko Spajić to consider a nationwide weapons ban. Police reported the shooter, Aco Martinović, had a history of violent behavior and illegal weapons possession, and the victims included family members and acquaintances. The government declared three days of national mourning following this second mass shooting in Cetinje within three years.
Read the original article here
The Montenegrin Prime Minister’s proposal for a nationwide gun ban following a mass shooting that claimed twelve lives is a dramatic response to a deeply rooted problem. Montenegro’s high rate of gun ownership, second only to Serbia in Europe, is a significant factor, with a substantial portion of firearms acquired illegally.
This proposal raises many questions. While public gun carry may already be illegal in Montenegro, the sheer number of privately owned weapons presents an ongoing challenge to law enforcement. A complete ban, even if successful in reducing legal gun ownership, faces the significant hurdle of addressing the already substantial black market for firearms.
The effectiveness of a complete ban in a society grappling with corruption and organized crime is a matter of considerable debate. The presence of significant quantities of weapons remaining from past conflicts, along with ongoing illicit arms trafficking, suggests that enforcing a ban could prove exceptionally difficult.
Concerns are voiced by hunters and others who rely on firearms for legitimate purposes, suggesting that the ban, as currently conceived, might be overly broad and fail to differentiate between legal and illegal gun use. This leads to criticism that the ban’s criteria are arbitrary, focusing on the aesthetic appearance of weapons rather than their inherent lethality.
A central argument against the ban focuses on the difference between law-abiding citizens and criminals. Laws, by their very nature, apply to those who choose to obey them. Criminals, however, will not be deterred by the mere existence of a law, making the efficacy of the ban questionable. The counterargument is that even if criminals will still obtain weapons, stricter gun control can decrease overall weapon availability, impacting crime rates.
The impact on self-defense is another pivotal consideration. Some argue that disarming the populace leaves law-abiding citizens vulnerable to those who operate outside the law, potentially emboldening criminal activity. The point is raised that the ability of individuals to defend themselves is a fundamental right that should not be readily disregarded. The question of whether this outweighs the public safety benefits of a gun ban is central to the debate.
Comparisons to other countries with stricter gun control are frequently brought up. Australia’s experience after implementing a nationwide ban following a mass shooting is cited as a success story, with a significant reduction in mass shootings in the decades following. However, such comparisons are not always direct. Montenegro’s unique social and political context significantly differentiates it from Australia.
Conversely, the United States’ experience is frequently used as a counter-example, illustrating the difficulties of achieving meaningful gun control in a society with a deeply entrenched gun culture and significant opposition to restrictions. Some claim that even with stricter laws, criminals still acquire weapons, and the issue becomes one of reducing overall availability and discouraging reckless behavior.
The debate touches on the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly regarding self-defense, and the government’s responsibilities to protect its citizens. The concern that such a ban could be seen as a step toward authoritarianism, alongside the potential for unintended consequences, underscores the complexities of this political move. The question of whether the potential benefits outweigh these risks remains a central point of contention.
Ultimately, the efficacy of the proposed ban remains uncertain. The long-term consequences will hinge on factors beyond the simple prohibition of firearms: enforcement, addressing the black market, and fostering a cultural shift around firearm ownership will all significantly impact the success or failure of this ambitious policy. The international community watches closely as Montenegro navigates this complex issue.