Keith Mulopo
Recently, the Serbian president Aleksander Vucic announced a “general disarmament” of the
nation, entailing a month-long amnesty for illegally held weapons, a moratorium on new weapon
permits, and a review of current gun licences. This is a response to the tragic mass shootings in
early May: one occurring at a school in Belgrade with the perpetrator being a 13 year old
boy, with nine people killed; the other, more south of the capital at Mladenovac, with the
shooter being a young man, with eight killed and 14 injured.
These shootings have sparked national conversations about gun control and the gun culture in
Serbia, as well as igniting the blame game for the incidents. Protests have taken place under
the slogan “Serbia against violence” because residents suspect the nation is developing a
culture of violence. Despite the amnesty being received well by both protestors and authorities
according to Bojan Elek (deputy director of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy), the natives
are still restless because they believe that these shootings have been fomented by the physical
and rhetorical violence in the public domain, TV shows, and political communication under the
reign of the Serbian Progressive Party.
Education minister Branko Ruzic identifies Western values as the underlying cause of the
shooting, contradicting Serbian ambitions to join the E.U, whilst president Vucic claims that
these tragedies are being used by opposition parties to undermine his legitimacy. Needless to
say, dividing lines are being drawn.
Before I touch on the gun control aspect of the issue, I have to say that the way these acts of
brutality have been leveraged by political actors in their bid to score points against the
opposition is disappointing. This is an example of how hideous politics can be, since the victims’
bodies haven’t even cooled yet politicians are using the heinous events as an attack vector,
undermining the humanity and innocence lost in the public consciousness. Politics can be a
bloody business indeed.
Regarding the measures and initiatives Vucic has introduced in response to the shootings, I
think they are sensible by and large. Yes, it makes total sense that only licensed individuals
should carry guns because they would be the most responsible, and, in Serbia, gun owners
have to go through extensive background checks including medical exams and character
testimonies from one’s neighbours and relatives. Thus, licensed gun owners would be very
aware of the dangers of carrying a firearm.
However, I do not think Serbia’s gun culture is as concerning as it may appear. Although 39/100
Serbian civilians own guns privately (ranked third in the world), mass shootings are fairly rare,
the last one being in 2013. Plus, the gun culture arose from the history of war and violence, with
many Serbians owning guns for self-protection, according to the Flemish Peace Institute.
Thus, for the Serbian government to propose the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility from 14
to 12, to deploy 1200 new police officers in schools across the country, and to allow for police
to search homes without court orders seems more performative rather than a true attempt to
solve the inherent problem.
To me, the measures could backfire because having police forces patrol schools and granted
the ability to search homes without permission could sow distrust and anxiety and more division
among the population, which isn’t proportional to the cause of the measures. Children would be
constantly reminded that they’re not safe where they spend most of their days, and
homeowners can’t trust that their privacy will be respected. The sense of security that allows for
a society to function smoothly is threatened.
If anything, I think what’s worth considering is Serbia’s relationship with their violent past and
the condition of the parenting of the younger generation. Dobrica Veselinovic from Green-left
party suggested that the nation should invest in more psychologists and have an honest talk
among themselves about their violent history. I agree and more: I think the condition of
parenting should be discussed too.
What struck me about the two incidents is how young the perpetrators are: 13 and 20-21
respectively. Perhaps the violence depicted on TV may have had an influence on these boys’
decision to resort to such heinous crimes, but to commit extreme violence reveals a level of
psychological dysfunction that can only be thoroughly investigated if there’s disclosure on how
they were being raised at home. Although the parents of the boy who did the Belgrade school
shooting have also been arrested, I do think that how the youth are being raised is worth
considering.
Of course, it’s too early to suggest a trend is developing regarding the profile of the mass
shooters in Serbia, but I do think the civic approach to ameliorating the propitious gun violence
in Serbia is missing the mark. Illegal gun ownership can’t account for the causes for young, very
young, men deciding to shoot civilians. This signals a much deeper problem, more
psychological, more human problem than the measures to curb it suggest. But for that to be
considered, gun control would have to become a more human issue than a political issue.
Image: Petar Milosevic
Comentarios