ArgumentsWe believe that the argument for Bowling for Columbine is that gun control in the United States is the major problem that the country faces. This is shown numerous times throughout the documentary. While trying to get the argument across, Moore opens an account at a bank where he then receives a gun. Although this process is quite realistic, it is dramatized for movie purposes, he would never have received a gun within minutes. Another example of the gun control problem is when Moore compares the USA to other countries in the world. He shows the number of people that are murdered annually by guns, the USA having a far greater number than the other countries, over 11 000. In addition to comparing the countries through numbers and facts, Moore goes across the river from Detroit, a city known for being high in crime rates and murders, to the Canadian city of Windsor. He converses with the citizens asking them about crime rates, gun control, and murders in Windsor, only to be told the cold hard truth about the difference between the USA and Canada. He is told that the one murder committed in Windsor was actually committed by a man from Detroit. By crossing the border between the two countries, we are shown the realism that the USA is far worse off than Canada. Canadians are not driven into fear of the people around them like the USA, which is why Moore concludes that the USA is more apt to pull out a gun on a neighbour. Finally, Moore gets his point across by using the song "What a Wonderful World" while showing additional statistics of US terrorism throughout the years. This shows how they use weapons of mass destruction to attempt to keep peace, when in reality it is making their situation far worse off.
|
BiasAfter viewing Bowling for Columbine, we can conclude that Moore did not put a direct bias into the film. Instead of forcing people to take his side by biasing the film, he showed different sides of the argument, in order for the viewer to decide which side they are biased towards. He showed people that own guns for "safety reasons", and people that are strictly against them. He also showed why Canadians thought there was a higher crime rate in the US, and why Americans thought Canada was so low in crime. So why did Michael Moore not include his biased opinion? There is no doubt the Moore is biased in his own mind, not only towards this film in particular, but in other films directed by him. However he does not wish to include his opinion on the subject. By giving his opinion it makes the viewer want to take his side without listening to the arguments. He wants people to decide for themselves between the just and the unjust. To get his argument across, he uses the appeals, especially Pathos. He shows footage of the shooting at Columbine High School, and when talking to NRA leader, Charlton Heston, he shows Heston the picture of the 6 year old girl murdered by the young boy. Heston made an appearance in Columbine and in the city where the young girl was murdered shortly after the two crimes were committed By showing this, the viewers are made angry by Heston's actions, and are more apt to take Moore's side of the argument. In our opinion, by showing the acts of terror he is scaring the people further, like he stated earlier in the film. He justified that fear is why there is a larger rate of gun murders in the USA than other countries in the world. However, it is still up to the viewer to decide what he or she believes.
|
By: Courtney McCracken