The first introductory statement of Executive Decree no. 707 of January 4, 2023, by which President Guillermo Lasso Mendoza authorized the regulated carrying of weapons for civilian use for personal defense, paradoxically mentions Art. 3.8. of the Constitution, which clearly defines, among other primary duties of the state, guaranteeing citizens the right to a culture of peace.

Since this is so, the questions immediately arise: is the proliferation of firearms in the hands of the civilian population ensured a civilized and peaceful coexistence among its members? Has the validity of the inverse relationship that between the lines supports this initiative been proven: the more guns in circulation, the lower the levels of crime and violence in society? This is important to keep in mind since misinterpreting or interpreting the problems arising from the public security crisis that Ecuador is currently facing could end up, as a result of wrong decisions, further exacerbating the problem, the cure being worse than the disease.

What consequences could carrying weapons cause in civil society in Ecuador?

By the way, in an interesting article entitled ‘Small arms control policies in Latin America’, Diego Sanjurjo gives interesting information: ‘…the latest estimates indicate that there are about 71 million small arms in Latin America, of which 86% would be in the hands civilian (…). For these reasons, Latin American countries assume that a greater restriction on access to firearms can be a rational measure to try to reduce the level of violence…’.

What this executive order does is explicitly represent a weak state where violence has increased…

It is true that Regulation no. 707, instead of providing certainty, caused enormous public concern about the effects its implementation would have on security, which pushed various actors, including a good part of the academy, to openly oppose this decision, which should have had enough studies to support it and moved away from the shadow of improvisation.

What are the requirements for obtaining a permit to carry a weapon and who issues it?

For now, this regulation states the distribution of responsibilities in the task of guaranteeing life and safety of people; a function which, however, is delegated to the state through the celebration of the social contract by which the citizen cedes freedom and hands over to public power the application of the monopoly of legitimate violence, all for the purpose of building a society far from the natural state that Hobbes spoke of. What this executive order does is explicitly represent a weak state where violence has increased exponentially and individuals must have the necessary ‘tools’ to defend themselves.

This claim, instead of supporting the circulation of weapons here and there, should rather serve to evaluate the very poor results of the National Secretariat for Public Security, which has been entrusted with the development of public policies, planning and coordination of the public security system since August 2022. (OR)