Ethos Pathos And Logos In Bowling For Columbine

Bowling for Columbine is a documentary directed by American filmmaker and activist, Michael Moore. The political documentary focuses on the 1999 school shootings that occurred in Columbine, Colorado, and Flint, Michigan and the correlation of guns to the high homicide rates in America. Moore argues that the number one problem the United States faces is gun control. Moore effectively uses ethos, pathos, and logos appeals to present an unbiased and informational view of the issue of gun violence in America. He also uses the fallacious argumentative strategy, ad hominem. Moore does not put his own direct bias into the film, he instead shows both sides of the argument to allow the viewer to decide for themselves which side they are on.

The Biased viewpoint of Michael Moore tears viewers away from the actual problem, and perhaps even the film’s intended message itself…

Currently, it is very easy for anyone to get their hands on a gun. If the laws and regulations were made to be stricter, the amount of people who die due to gun violence could potentially and would most likely decrease. If someone needs a gun fast and wants to do something illegal with it, they are not going to wait a long time or want to have to go through a long process. Guns are also rarely used for self defense. Every year there are over thousands of assaults however less than one percent of these cases end up being self defense. Many people want to own a gun to feel safe and for self defense however they end up being used for crimes. Being able to buy things such as fast shooting guns and silencers make it very easy for someone to commit large shootings. If gun control was more strict, these mass shootings could be more easily avoided. A large percentage of suicides in the U.S. are done with guns that are legally bought. If the waiting period and process for

The violence in the United States is a big issue, but making more gun laws is not the answer. It is an inevitable fact that making it harder to get access to guns would only lead people to turn to black markets and more underhanded deals. In an article for the Los Angeles Times, James Q. Wilson writes, “It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow” (Wilson). Dramatic changes within gun controls laws would, in itself, make more people mad and possibly lead to riots. In many people's minds, more gun control laws would mean to taking guns away. Gun control laws within themself are not a bad thing, the extent to which they are taken within a nation

The effects of gun control laws have been highly effective but they don?t stop people from trying to get a firearm. The Brady Handgun Control Act made it more difficult to purchase and own a gun. Pro-gun affiliates see gun control laws as a way for the government to dictate the people. The real question is, Who should own a gun and what restrictions should they have to be able to keep it?

Even with tighter restrictions, gun access would still be easy for those that really want them. It’s almost impossible to use better background checks to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. If they can’t buy them, they will steal or borrow them. Gun control laws don’t stop those who really want guns, they only prevent everyone else from defending themselves. One important thing to remember is that guns are not only used by dangerous people who will get them no matter what. guns are also a huge factor in self defense. Somewhere between 100,000 and 2 million self defense cases occur each year (Wilson 1). If guns become even more impossible to obtain, what would this mean for these

There are currently over 200 million guns in use, which means obtaining a gun in the United States mustn't be that hard. If gun usage could be regulated more by banning certain unneeded weapons to the public and requiring a more in depth background check, than miss usage of guns, and deaths caused by them would decrease. However, already existing laws need to be enforced and harsher penalties for those who don't follow the laws. If the country would agree on certain legislation for gun control, than The United States could be a much safer

Gun control has raised various debates in the public policy for quite a long time. Gun control involves the banning of ownership of some or all types of firearms, waiting period and the so called ban on Saturday night specials. These gun control laws have not been useful in combating crimes as many studies conducted before and after the laws have shown no correlation. In most cases there are misconceptions like high death rates in children related to the gun associated accident and the effectiveness of these control laws in other countries which are false. Indeed gun ownership has contributed to significant decline in the crime rates and therefore gun laws should be changed to make it easier for Americans to purchase handguns, carry them

The 2002 film Bowling for Columbine is a documentary written, directed, and narrated by Michael Moore. Moore has won numerous awards including the Academy Award for best documentary feature. The film explores acts of violence with guns and the primary causes for the Columbine School Massacre, where two students shot and killed thirteen people and injured twenty-one others. Bowling for Columbine takes a deep and often disturbing probe into what the motives may have been for the shooters and investigates other gun-related issues along the way. Moore explores different aspects of gun-culture such as receiving free guns from a bank, taking a look at America’s violent history, and interviewing important people like Charlton Heston, former president of the National Rifle Association. The film ultimately comes to the conclusion that the American culture of fear along with the accessibility of guns is the reason why there are so many gun-related deaths. This thesis is supported by many examples Ethos, Logos, and Pathos evidence.

After studying Bowling for Columbine (a documentary film series), I have been invited to contribute an analysis and evaluating essay to Cinema Verite’s next addition, disclosing how filmmaker Michael Moore successfully persuades the audience to adopt the invited reading.  The invited reading is that the United States government cultivate a culture of fear which directly impacts gun violence as citizens are granted accessible gun ownership and which also implementing unemployed citizens.  Michael Moore presents Bowling For Columbine a documentary comprising of confronting and proactive messages on America’s gun control, incorporating techniques composed of mise-en-scene, cinematography, and post-production. The documentary title Bowling for Columbine refers to a massacre on the 20th of April 1999 where two Colorado students murdered a teacher and twelve classmates at Columbine High School. Mise-en-scene and cinematography are used when Michael Moore validates the absence of gun control by obtaining one himself from

Firearms are rarely used now for in justifiable reasons compared to the thousands of criminal homicides. In the rare event that a gun is legally purchased and registered, there is still a risk that the firearm could be stolen and used by those with the intent to do harm. However, homicides are more often committed through the use of legally owned guns used by the original owner. CNN reports that, “hospitalizations from gunshot wounds cost $700 million a year.” The rates of suicidal, unintentional, legal and homicidal gunshot wounds and fatalities may not be changing with or without implementation of more thorough and strict gun laws. However, there are still millions upon millions of dollars lost in the united states due to firearm injury or death. So, no one gets out of these firearm related events unscathed. The possibility of removing the ability for easy gun access could save so many lives. There should be a screening process put in place that is more thorough and difficult in order for an individual interested in purchasing the gun to be allowed to

Whenever everyone gets to thinking about how many death occurs in the United States does anyone instantly think about a gun? The gun that everyone thinks about does not kill, the people that are using the gun usually kills. Guns have a safety switch on them which makes the gun a lot safer, but when the gun reaches the hands of a criminal the gun becomes very dangerous. Wandering the streets with a gun in your hand does not mean pull it up and just automatically start shooting everyone. Putting more gun restrictions on everyone does not help prevent dangerous things from going on it only makes it become more dangerous for us, because we would not have any protection from the bad guys. (Pratt). There should not be anymore restrictions on guns in the United States, because innocent people are dying every day, it would not decrease the mass shootings, and the 2nd amendment would be misinterpreted.

Within the documentary, Moore uses archival footage of gun violence, pro-gun and anti-gun rallies, and news media footage – often with this being expressed through montage with contrapuntal, non-diegetic sound. Additionally, Moore uses his own angry, humorous, and satirical commentary through voice-over, and interviews with civilians on either end of the gun control debate.

3. Tougher rules won’t keep criminals from obtaining firearms. Guns should not be banned because criminals will now be the only ones who have the guns, holding the general public's safety in danger

Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm