By reducing the restrictions on keeping and carrying weapons, the President of the Republic confirmed the state’s inability to respect the first and most important reason for its existence, which is the protection of the population. With this step towards populism, he tried to align himself with the collective feeling that is looking for solutions to insecurity, but he did it in a way that amounts to the message: “If you want security, provide it yourself and bear the consequences.” ” With his signature, he left practically without effect the principle that gives the monopoly of force to the state. It is a pillar of social coexistence that, according to classical writers, prevents a return to the chaos typical of the natural state.

The presidential decision, as well as the one previously passed by the Assembly in the same sense and with a large majority, were explained by their authors by referring to the conditions for possessing and, above all, using weapons. Psychological examinations, criminal records, training, biometric data and other conditions are the resources with which its authors try to qualify the effects that this measure will inevitably have. They, like every Ecuadorian, know that these are all steps that are easy to skip in a country where obtaining a basic identification document requires going through a processor. They also know that the calmest professional turns into an aggressive machine as soon as he puts his hands on the steering wheel. Some of them are also unaware that the criminal ignores the threat and shoots early when he assumes his victim is armed.

The essence of the matter lies in two areas that are under the jurisdiction of the state. What is most visible and what worries ordinary people the most is the guarantee of their safety or, to put it more clearly, the protection of their lives. All state institutions converge on this goal, from those that must be in charge of making laws to those that must ensure security, including those that process conflicts and those that administer justice. Putting a rifle in the hands of each individual takes him out of all these frameworks and subjects him to the law of the strongest and the fastest.

The second area is more complex and less visible in the security aspect. These are people’s living conditions, especially levels of insecurity and inequality. It is a hotbed of ordinary crime. The function of the state in this regard is basically regulation through economic and social policy. But in this field as well, one can see the abandonment of the State, based on the primitive understanding of dismissal and letting go. A situation like the one the country has been in since the end of the oil price boom is destroying the social fabric and getting worse without a proper political decision.

The central actor in the current scenario of insecurity is transnational organized crime, which uses local gangs and cannot be fought with weapons in the hands of citizens. According to the young man who recovered from the drug and was attacked by those who felt it was hurting his business, it’s all “charged madness” and she’s not fighting with a gun in her hand. (OR)