The state of Wisconsin recently passed legislation allowing the concealed carry of firearms, making Illinois the only state in the union where there are no concealed carry laws. Is Illinois right, or are the other 49 states wrong?


The state of Wisconsin recently passed legislation allowing the concealed carry of firearms, making Illinois the only state in the union where there are no concealed carry laws. Is Illinois right, or are the other 49 states wrong?

FOR:

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed the state’s concealed carry legislation into law earlier this month, it gave Illinois no company with its firearm laws.

After it was signed into law, Illinois became the only state without any kind of concealed carry legislation. Every other state has some kind of law that allows its citizens to protect themselves by carrying firearms in public.

It isn’t due to a lack of effort that Illinois stands alone. Earlier this year, a bill that would have allowed citizens to carry concealed firearms failed to make it out of the General Assembly.

Illinois is different than almost every other state. The city of Chicago, which makes up a sizeable of the state’s population, often speaks louder than the rest of the state, which covers more territory. In the past, it has been the powers from the northeastern part of the state that have kept the concealed carry laws from passing in Illinois.

If properly enforced, concealed carry laws allow citizens to protect themselves if criminals attempt to do them harm. It also deters criminal activity with the threat of citizens carrying weapons.

Since every other state has a similar law in the books, how is it possible that they are all doing it wrong, and the Land of Lincoln is doing it right?

AGAINST:

The idea that simply carrying a gun around will somehow decrease the possibility of a crime occurring is absurd. What evidence is there to think that a “good citizen” —hiding a weapon — will decrease the possibility of an attack?

If the weapon is concealed, it can’t realistically be a deterrent factor, can it? If the attacker does not see anyone carrying a weapon, they would act as just as if no one were armed.

In similar situations like that which occurred in Arizona with Sen. Giffords, how are the police expected to separate the antagonizer and the “good citizens” who could be exchanging fire with one another?

Why put our police officers in a situation where they have to quickly separate the shooter from the citizens “doing a good deed?”

It is one thing to have a gun at home to protect family and home, but when that person takes matters into their possibly untrained hands outside of the home, they are putting everyone else at risk for uncertainty he or she may have overlooked and taken for granted.

Leave apprehending bad guys to the trained professionals.