Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary for bowling for columbine
Analysis of Bowling for Columbine byits
Summary for bowling for columbine
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Summary for bowling for columbine
As a viewer who does not own a gun, and who is also pretty clueless about gun control laws, I was all ears to what Michael Moore had to say in his documentary Bowling for Columbine. In this documentary, Moore raises awareness for the growing need to have stricter gun control laws. Why does Moore believe that America needs stricter gun control laws? It is because Moore believes that everything that surrounds Americans is supposed to make Americans scared; America is run on a culture of fear. Although Moore’s message is an important one, Moore’s inability to connect his various sub-topics and his use of questionable evidence, ultimately destroys the audience’s understanding, and leaves them confused.
Throughout his documentary, Moore, uses many sub-topics to try to convey his message that America is run on the culture of fear. These include the school shootings, the causes of gun violence, the culture of fear that lives in America, the lack good welfare programs, how he believes that the NRA was insensitive by having pro-gun conventions right after the school shootings, and how Americans segregate and stereotype against blacks, Hispanics, and Latinos, and Canada’s lack of gun violence. All of these sub-topics individually are effective in displaying the reasons for the culture of fear in America, but sub-topics together, they create a random mix of ideas with no clear connection. I was very confused. I had no idea what Michael Moore’s true purpose was. Was it that the Columbine shootings were horrible, and he was trying to raise awareness of the event? Or was he trying to say that Americans segregate people too much? I was not the only one confused. In the article “Bowling for Columbine: Film Asks Provocative questions about US Cul...
... middle of paper ...
...from Canada’s National Post saying that “’Nearly all of the Toronto murders have been committed with handguns… [and] in the past 115 years, the proportion of all firearm murders committed with handguns has nearly doubled in Canada from just over 1/3 to nearly 2/3’”. Obviously, Moore tries to hide the fact that Canada is actually very much like America, that it is run on the culture of fear.
Moore’s documentary is supposed to inform the people of the growing violence in America, and that America needs stricter gun control laws. Although, Moore has many great topics to share throughout the documentary, I found myself lost in the collection of themes, and not being able to find the purpose. Moore’s inability to connect the sub-topics together, and his use of very obviously biased evidence, ultimately destroys his ethos, and skewing the true purpose of the documentary.
Michael Moore’s documentary, “Bowling for Columbine,” attempts to expose the truth of gun violence in the United States of America. While his argument is persuasive, its impact is lessened with his use of logical fallacies, such as hasty generalization, post hoc, and appeal to doubtful authority. Moore’s film is thrillingly entertaining, but it is hard to look past the gaping holes in some of his logic.
In his article “Gun debate? What gun debate?” Mark O 'Mara discuses the controversial issue of gun control. O’Mara takes the tragic school shooting in Oregon as an opportunity to voice his opinion on the debate of guns. He clearly states his position and explains that gun violence has increased enormously because of the lack of command by the government and support from the public to speak out against it. O’Mara claims the issue is no longer a debate because it is so evident that guns have become a significant problem in this country and therefore actions must be taken to control and govern gun laws. In his article he attempts to raise awareness to the severity of the issue and tries to persuade his readers to take a stance against gun violence
Guns have possessed the spotlight of almost every news station. From the latest tragedy of a shooting killing innocent men, women and children to the arguments centering around if our gun laws possess strict enough qualities to keep our country safe. Charles C. W. Cooke, the author of “Gun-Control Dishonesty”, spreads his conservative view on the topic by ripping away any hope for a brighter day. Cooke’s main idea states that if nothing has happened to make gun law more strict even after the lives of innocent children were mercilessly ripped away from their young bodies than nothing should or could ever change. On the other hand, Adam Gopnik wrote his article, “Shooting”, uses a more liberal approach and inspires his audience to act upon the much needed change in our society
...so bad, though, shouldn't the media be covering it and don't citizens have something to be afraid of? And if the media is indeed over-covering the issue and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film? CONCLUSION All in all penetrating, contradictory gossipy Michael Moore’s "Columbine" a strong and effective yet moralizing castigation of gun violence is an eye opener for all Americans. "I wanted to say something much larger about how society is manipulated by politicians and corporations into being in a constant state of panic and fear," Moore asserted, "and how once you get the population whipped up like that, conservative regimes can get just about anything they want out of the people without firing a shot." Since I'm not pretending to be an objective journalist in this article, I'll just conclude by saying, Amen to that, Brother. Bibliography
Being “an Oregon farm boy who was given a .22 rifle for my 12th birthday” (Kristof), it’s safe to say that Kristof is acquainted with guns and in having this first-hand knowledge, has developed a valid mechanical perspective on the subject. He gathers information from authorities as well as International procedures in the realm of gun control to form a well-rounded opinion. His intertwining of others’ viewpoints displays an attempt to rationalize his own opinion and assimilate into the cultural context of this sensitive social discussion. Directly referring to Tucson (the most recent mass shooting at that time), he validates himself in the currency of the issue. His arguments are not fanatical or grandiose, aggressive or offensive, but subtle and confident, inviting, open for discussion and within the realm and climate of this unfortunate public
2. I agree with Michael Moore's message in the documentary. I think there is way to much violence in our society, I also think there should be a restriction on guns. Children in our society today, see violence in their schools, on TV , their neighborhoods, and their homes. The daily new is rife with reports of child molestations and abductions. War in foreign lands along with daily reports of murder, rape and robberies also heighten a child's perception of potential violence.
Gun Violence Opposing View Points. Ed. James D. Torr. Greenhaven Presss.Inc., San Diego, California: Daniel Leone, 2002, Print
Gun Ownership and Gun Control in Canada The Oscar-won documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’ has aroused people’s awareness of gun ownership and gun control issues. Should gun ownership be banned or should guns be controlled? Does gun ownership create a violent society? The answer is not measurable, however, from the firearm situation between America and Canada, the answer is more obvious.
Aroung the time of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the controversial and widely argued issue of gun control sparked and set fire across America. In the past decade however, it has become one of the hottest topics in the nation. Due to many recent shootings, including the well known Sandy Hook Elementary school, Columbine High School, Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech, together totaling 87 deaths, many people are beginning to push for nationwide gun control. An article published in the Chicago Tribune by Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Collins, entitled “Gun Control is Long Overdue” voiced the opinion that in order for America to remain the land of the free, we must take action in the form of stricter gun laws. On the contrary, Kathleen Parker, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group whose articles have appeared in the Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan, and Fortune Small Business, gives a different opinion on the subject. Her article in The Oregonian “Gun Control Conversation Keeps Repeating” urges Americans to look at the cultural factors that create ...
A man by the name of Sean Faircloth, who is an author, an attorney, and a five-term state legislator from Maine; went against Sam Harris to give his own beliefs on the ordeal. Faircloth also wrote an article for The Week in response to Harris titled, “Why more guns won’t make us safer” in which he claims that Harris neglected the two largest problems involving gun-violence. Faircloth believes that Harris failed to acknowledge the substantial issue of gun-related domestic violence against women, and the success of gun-control legislation in foreign countries. Utilizing statistics, real world examples, and his own logic; Faircloth goes in depth with his core arguments. He wrote his article to dissuade the readers of Sam Harris’s article that “Why I own guns” lacks
One of the things that have become evident throughout the past is that gun control issues are being pushed through various conspiracy theories; for example, the shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Skeptics believe that the massacre was a joint government and media operation to create support to repeal the second amendment (Stuart, 1). Logically, this actually makes sense. Although it is easier to believe that what happened on December 14, 2012 was legitimate, it is possible that America has been duped. What better way to rally support to ban federal assault weapons than to create a scenario or situation that enables guns to kill innocent children and pull an emotional heart string on millions world-wide? Therefore, if the said tragedy was actually an ingenious plan hatched by the people who lead the country of America, then it appears to have worked in their favor. Since the shooting, Congress has pushed for sweeping reforms. In addition to Congress actively making changes due to the shooting that very well may have been conjured up by their ow...
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
In the article “Gun Control Can Prevent School Shootings,” Bennett shares the effects of gun violence in the past, present, and future. The Sandy Hook shooting occurred on December 14, 2012 when twenty children and six adult staff members were killed. Barely a month after the shooting, eleven of the families affected by the shooting went to meet privately with Joe Biden, and members from the Congress and cabinet. Bennett stated, “They were preparing to wade into some of the roughest waters in American politics: the gun debate.” President Obama gave a speech in Connecticut vowing to fight for change. And as Bennett put it, “Members of Congress started acting as parents instead of politicians.” Bennett explained to the families that they couldn't get rid of assault weapons or high capacity ammunition magazines, no matter how bad the shooting was. The families got angry and stated they did not want to know what they couldn't do, but what they could do to honor their children.
By appealing to several different views, Wheeler is able to grab every reader’s attention. Using schools as his focus point grabs the reader’s attention on a personal level. A school is a place where your children, your friends, your spouses all could be, and we still aren’t motivated to change our gun control laws. Tragic events do not have to happen like those that occurred at Virginia Tech, The Jewish Day care in Los Angeles, and Pearl High School. Wheeler believes concealed carry should be allowed in every school. Let’s make the students and teachers of these schools and colleges their own heroes. Wheeler says we must embrace all of the varied disciplines contributing to preparedness and response. We must become more willing to be guided and informed of empirical finding. School officials base policies on irrational fears. Wheeler states, “What is actually worse, the fear of what we think might happen, or the massacres that actually did occur?” Wheelers essay is very well thought out and uses fear, credibility, and factual evidence to support his beliefs. My belief is we should allow teachers and students to have guns at schools, as long as they have gone through training to do
One prominent rhetorical appeal he uses in the film is ethos. Ethos is the credibility or ethical appeal by a means of convincing your character as an author; in this case, Moore proves himself as a worthy or appropriate person to bring up the claim to install limitations on guns. He first explains the relevance of guns in his life by explaining that was born in Flint, Michigan - where the majorities of the population either owned a gun or were pro-gun advocates. From his childhood to his young adult years, he focuses directly that guns have been a very influential part in his life. For example, Michael Moore is a lifetime member of National Rifle Association meaning he accomplished several requirements and or task to be indicted; also, in doing these objectives, they may have changed his opinion to be pro-gun or for guns control. In fact, when the viewers of the documentary were informed of his members, probable suggestions came up that he will favor guns and lean to the opposition of gun control; in actuality, he takes a neutral, unbiased stand towards gun and collects data and statistic to p...