I would like to agree with Michael Moore for producing such an informative documentary. In deed, Bowling for Columbine presents a real scenario on gun violence and the mysteries surrounding the April 20, 1999 Columbine High School massacre in which Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students along side their teacher (Howe, D., 2002). The movie is compelling and gives a lot of information regarding this shooting which caused a lot of agonies to many people. The possession of guns had not become an issue of concern in the United States of America (USA) during that time. This explains why it was possible for these students to get these dangerous gadgets to use in the school compound just to cause havoc to their colleagues.
I would like to agree with Moore for blaming this on the failure of the government to control the acquisition of this controversial device. For instance, Moore’s claim on free gun for opening a bank account is a clear indication of the laxity of the government to come up with stringent measures regarding guns. The storage of guns at the bank’s premises makes it easier for their distribution to the respective clients. At the same time, the production of weapons for mass destruction and their use also influences people views violence as a normal way of life. This is particularly dangerous to the school going children who view violence as a normal activity. Moore effectively presented his views in a thought provoking manner. This shows that the film was produced after an extensive research (Chris, C., 2002).
However, I would suggest that he was not justified to claim that fear of individual security is a recipe for violence. Instead of taking such an advantage, people should not use guns to aggressively attack others. They should be used for their personal defense only during attacks. This is what is provided for by the gun control laws. Therefore, Moore is not right for making such an assertion (Williamson, M., 2007). Besides, his claim on the laxity of the banks in the issuance of guns is not to store guns, but to sell them to the intending clients after carrying out a rigorous vetting exercise. These are not verifiable. I am strongly convinced that this claim does not hold water. It is a common knowledge that such premises are not used for the storage of rifles. Shipments are always made after the completion of the verification process and the making of an order.
The only compelling fact is that weapons of mass destruction cause a great influence. If the young ones are brought up in a war torn environ, they will believe that violence is the only right thing to do. This is why Harris and Dylan decided to commit the brutal shooting. In order to avert this, it should be upon the government to review the gun control laws. Stringent measures should be enforced to regulate acquisition and use of guns. Moreover, the convicted culprits should be heavily punished to act as examples to those intending to commit the same offence (Cullen, D., 2005).
Questions
- Given that Moore attributes this massacre to the influence of weapons of mass destruction, what measures should be taken by the government towards the production and use of these weapons?
- Gun possession has become an issue of concern in the United States of America. Do you think that the government should amend the gun control laws?
Works Cited
Chris, C. (2002). Moore Puts gun Culture in cross Hairs. The Columbia Chronicle.
Cullen, D. (2005). A little Unfinished Business on Bowling and Columbine. The Hollywood
Reporter.
Howe, D. (2002). Moore Shoots Himself In the Foot. The Washington Post.
Williamson, M. (2007). Filmmaker Michael Moore's Spirituality. The Oprah Magazine.
