|Interpersonal Effectiveness →|
Custom Bowling for Columbine essay paper
Over the last decade the issue of gun control was very controversial within media and was prolifically overviewed by politician. Constant tragedies that are taking place at our homes, work places and even schools brought attention of media concerning gun control violations which causes death of our citizens. The questions arise in my mind. What is the gun control? How this issue can be? What can happen if we forget about this issue?
"What are some policies the U.S. government/local govt./citizens will need to change to make a more peaceful and just world for future generations?"(Ref. http://voyager.dvc.edu/~NSKAPURA/122/122M/EnglishComposition.html) The National Rifle Association argues that lawmakers should enforce the law, but if people carry guns for their own protection against those who carry guns to do harm, it would make sense to remove all guns from the streets, then no one would need a gun. There shouldn't be a ban on all guns because law enforcement officers need to carry firearms, but to make it safer when off duty, all guns should be left at the station. For sportsmen to be able to hunt, their guns should be registered and not sold without permission and shoals only be sold to other sportsmen. They should keep their guns at the range and have to check them out each time they want to use it. When used properly there should be no argument for the restrictions placed on guns, but when they get into the hands of the wrong people all citizens could benefit from the restrictions placed on them. Thought quite often the killer germ that unregulated gun ownership spreads, particularly in the hands of adolescents, is fear. Guns are used everyday in violent crimes. Whether it be robbing a liquor store, or to just killing someone. Social violence expert Jeffrey Fagen says, "Gun violence among youth follows a pattern similar to that of infectious diseases. And like disease epidemics, it is contagious."
So why are Americans so violent to each other? The mission to answer on this question was placed on Moore a film director of "Bowling in Columbine" - the documental movie that describes tragic events that had a place in Columbine High School, Colorado The only real persuasion that seems to fuel the film is the suggestion that Americans need to be inquisitive: of themselves, and of their culture; they should want to know the truth, and they should be aware of the lies and fear promoted through politics and the media. Thus, while the film reflects a bias towards gun restriction and against the NRA, it comes off as mostly objective. First of all, Moore pulls off this sense of objectivity from the very start, by explaining his affiliation with the NRA. When he was a kid, he explains, he loved to shoot, having received an NRA marksmanship award. In fact, when Moore visits NRA president Charlton Heston, he mentions that, even now, he is a life-long member. This is a smart move, since the NRA seems to stand out as a villain in the film. Since, I assume, Moore wants to persuade rather than merely tell the people on his side what they want to hear, it is a wise decision on his part to seem a friend who is later betrayed by the NRA, rather than outright bashing the organization. Moore lets the people he interviews, and the facts, speak for themselves. For instance, while exploring the possible influences on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two high school students responsible for the Columbine shooting, Moore visits Lockheed Martin, the biggest U.S. arms manufacturer. Lockheed Martin is, ironically, located in or near Littleton, Colorado, where the shooting took place. Moore posits the correlation between the mass destruction caused by such nuclear missiles made by Lockheed Martin and the mass destruction caused on a smaller scale at Columbine. To this, the representative tells Moore that there is no correlation, since the missiles manufactured there are used in the country's defense, not in deliberate attack. Immediately following this interview, without any forthright opinion, we enter into a quiet segment of the film, reflecting on events in U.S. history in which the U.S. was either directly or indirectly responsible for mass murder that was not in the country's defense. In this way, the assumable "authority" figure at Lockheed Martin is shown to be either ignorant, or a liar. Moore does this throughout the film, providing a subtle yet irrefutable commentary. ...