Bowling for Columbine: Raising the Issue of Gun Control

Bowling for Columbine is a movie directed by Moore. The movie was created before the beginning of the second gulf war back in 2002. The movie has remained to be one of the provocative explorations of the American culture. The film has recorded both the critical and the commercial success based on the manner in which the film has escalated the film industry and the manner in which the director of the movie attracted lots of hatred among the American people. For this reason, the paper seeks to discuss the movie and the larger issue of gun violence in six different mechanisms. At the peak times of sniper terror in Washington DC, there was absolutely no serious concern for gun control. However, the Washington DC security agency advised people to walk in a spiral manner. This is the kind of occurrence that made the director of the movie angry (Moore 89). For this reason, he came up with an uproarious documentary discussing the American toxic relationship with weaponry and gun very relevant. From the film, gun control is not something that the director of the movie is calling for. On one hand, he is implying that free and easy gun control regulations are the main issues; on the other hand, he is pointing the fingers to the Canadians.

Canada has lax gun control rules and regulations and massive consumption of violent Hollywood film. Despite this, the country has a tiny rate of murder among the citizens. One minute the director is saying that violence seems to be endemic in the United States of America, on the other the director is saying that it’s a myth that is completely fueled by the media. This is well demonstrated in the ambiguity of the film’s title. For instance, the kid who shot the Columbine high school proceeded to bowl at 6 am on that fateful day. Therefore, what majority of people are asking themselves is that perhaps bowling is the main problem. This phenomenon brought out the aspect of sarcasm. Bafflingly, the underlying sarcasm was rightfully deployed by the gun apologists whom the director of the movie clearly loathes. Therefore, the creation of this movie was clearly a path of realization and discovery for the director himself. He made no bones on not having the answers which seemed refreshing but also exasperating. The director managed to bring the combination of ideas together with the interviews and wacky clips, pastiches, and also spoofs (Voigt 56). The movie started with an impeccable interview with the Michigan financial institution which provided rifles to all the clients. The movie wondered if financial institutions wanted people to possess guns. He went ahead to take an interview with militia weirdoes and the scary person with swivelling eyes who escaped the Oklahoma City bombing. He managed to demonstrate the horrifying CCTV of Columbine massacre and talked to the survivors about the issues and other tragedies which majority of the Americans shrugged helplessly.

The movie also got the views of Charlton Hesston. It came out clearly that the Americans addiction to the gun is linked to the fall of Charlton Hesston career. According, to the actor, the Americans gun-related violence’s is linked to ethnicity compared to other countries in the world. That is one of the remarks that he regretted the moment he uttered it. The seismic event of the September 11, took place in the process of the production schedule. It inspired Moore to widen his focus to the entire global, geopolitical questions when ought to have concentrated on the local American scene (Voigt 56). The sentiments are the machinery and economic of power which underpinned the outrages linked to guns. The director then raises the element of ethnicity and race, however, with a totally different angle from Hesston. The underclass seems to have scared the white Americans into the behaviour of owning guns and it is the underclass who is the victims of crimes from where the likes of Wasp Patricians insulated themselves.

The film is a remarkable piece of art. There is no problem of going back to the first principle or even to sound earnest. The criticism that Moore got, made him look like a lone individual in the America media. This is linked to the fact that he managed to challenge the gun cultures of which the majority of the Americans had little or no interest to it. For the majority of the Americans, there are absolutely no votes and no sales of tickers. In short, they are for gun control. The film is over seventeen years of age now. However, the gun homicide total and the fundamental issues with gun violence seem to be unchanged in the country. The problem should be considered today by coming up with stringent gun control measures. The massive shooting that the country has experienced lately is something to worry about. For this reason, implementation of gun control policies needs to be taken into consideration by the law enforcers.