Gun Violence Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

An analysis on gun violence in the US. ...

Description

Marc Kirchner ENG 201 18 February 2018 What are We Waiting for? An analysis on Gun Violence in the United States

Gun violence and the issues that come with it have been more active in the media and politics in recent years than before. Why is that? In Michael Moore’s documentary “Bowling for Columbine”, he explores what the cause for gun violence in the United States is. He goes around to different people in different places to see the perspective of people who highly support the second amendment. His findings were surprising to me, and a lot of the answers he received were plain ignorant. While watching I was perplexed to see how a large percentage of my fellow Americans think. Overall, I thought the documentary was very informative, and brought light to a lot of important issues surrounding gun violence. While bringing light to the issues, the documentary also poses a lot of important questions. First, in the beginning of the film, Michael is at a bank getting a gun because apparently that it is normal. And the women tells him he cannot be criminally mentally defective, and he asks her if he can be just mentally defective and still get the gun because it’s not “criminally”. She responds and tells him that is exactly right. This poses the question, how many people like this woman do not care who they are giving a gun to? In addition, as the film goes on, they show a dog with a gun strapped to his back because the hunters wanted to get a good picture. The gun ends up going off and shooting someone. Who thought it was a good idea to put a loaded gun on the back of a dog? Moving on from that, one of the subtler scenes in the film is when Michael is getting his hair cut and buys bullets at the same time. This makes me wonder how many other regular-everyday establishments sell ammunition in this country? When interviewing some of the people from the Michigan militia, Michael asks each of the men their professions. He gets several responses including real estate agent, unemployed, and a truck driver. This poses the question, what makes these men qualified to own all of these automatic weapons and be part of a militia? And if asked about gun control, all of these men would say that they have the right to protect themselves. The word “control” spurs a lot of upheaval in these communities. According to Peter Baker from the New York Times, “Gun control advocates these

days generally do not use the term gun control; instead, they talk about curbing gun violence, recognizing that “control” stirs opposition among legal gun owners who fear their rights being trampled” (Baker 3). Moving on from that, in this same town he decides to interview two men who went to school with the shooters from the Columbine shooting. During the interview, one of the men says he has a copy of “The Anarchist Cookbook”, which details how to make various explosives. This poses the question, why is this type of book readily available to the public? In addition, the other man says he is known for selling guns, drugs, and alcohol. Why has this man not been arrested? Also, after the Columbine shooting Michael depicts how the media tried to blame the tragedy on several different factors (Marilyn Manson an example), but none relating to the possession of guns. The film poses the question at this moment and throughout of why did the media not perpetuate gun violence sooner instead of focusing on other pointless things? According to John Howard (a former Australian Prime Minister), “Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun” (Howard 3). He recognized the core of the problem, which is something America has just begun to do. In addition, later on in the film, a newscaster mentions how one in five people in America suffer from mental illness. If this many people have a mental issue, why are guns so accessible? In the film, the NRA describes explaining to children what to do if they see a gun on the table. Would it not be easier if there was not a gun on the table? Furthermore, this film was made in 2002, but it could have been made this year and I would not have been surprised. It still comes off as very relevant which brings me to my final question posed by the film. If this movie is still relevant 16 years later, how much progress have we really made in stopping gun violence? From the many questions this movie posed for me, there was one scene that stood out to me the most and that is when the shooting happened by the 6-year-old. That whole story was very compelling for me. The 911 call is what stuck in my head the most because the desperation of the woman on the line is evident. The scene depicts how a first grader got his hands on a gun at home, brought it to school, and proceeded to shoot another first grader. Did this child know what he was doing? He probably did not. But, he should have never had access to a gun. This is what makes this part one of the most significant in the whole film. It depicts what is wrong in this country. It is blasphemous to see a child that had such easy access to a gun. Furthermore, it embodies the whole gun violence message of the documentary.

While a first grader or even a fifth grader having a gun may seem completely insane to others, it does not to me. And that is because I grew up in a town where it is very common to hunt. There are parents who take out their kids from as young as fourth grade to go out on their first hunt. My family is originally from the New York area, so we never really understand the local traditions. But, that was part of it. Hunting is a big part of the culture in the locality of where I live. And yet, I have never felt unsafe. Growing up there, there was some crime, but nothing crazy. I always heard of school shootings happening other places, but I never thought it would happen in my town. I felt safe, even though I was aware of all of citizens having guns. I think for me, that answer the topic question. Since I can feel safe in a town full of guns, I definitely think gun violence has more to do with nurture rather than nature. Overall, I think gun violence is a real problem and there should be more restrictions on the usage of guns because even a sensible person can have an accident. Or the gun could fall into the wrong hands. I think there is too many things that could go wrong, especially in our modern world. This leads me to my final question, which is, do you believe the progression of technology will worsen gun violence or help it?

Word Count: 1210

Works Cited...