Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Recent movie analysis
Guns and Talks follow a group of four men who will assassinate anyone for money. Although these four men aren't any regular assassins. They only kill for the benefit of others. The movie take place in Seoul where mysterious murders are happening. The group of killers consists of Sang-Yeon the leader, Jung-woo who's good with bombs, sniper expert Jae-young, and the hacker Ha-yoon. All four believe they're doing a service by killing people. In some ways it's a vital job to society, just as any other line of work. They operate residentially as a private business where any clients can come to them as they please to request an order. Each client has to sign a formal contract of agreement on the terms of their request. Such as
date, time, and place. An added bit of comedy is that there's a student discount. All four live a typical life with day to day work. Ha-yoon's horrible cooking adds to the comedy side of the movie. And watching their crush (Eun-mi a young news reporter, everyday on the news on TV. One day while Sang-Yeon the leader is waiting at a bus stop a young highschool girl Gong Hyo-Jin asks him to kill someone. He refuses, which seems a bit odd given the circumstance of by request they'll kill for money. Even though Hyo-Jin was denied Sang-Yeon leaves a briefcase by her feet. So she brings it over to their house and insists on hiring them to kill a young man who's wronged her. As well as pregnant women (Oh Seung-Hyun), whose husband wants to kill their unborn child. One day Sang-Yeon meets with the news reporter all four boys are infatuated with. This was foreshadowed in the being of the movie. She asks him to kill a man, publicly during a play of Hamlet in front of many people. This big job he can't turn down is by far a dangerous mission, but he decides to do it. What is particularly evident in this movie is the clients coming to these men are all female, in regards to the movies story. At the end of this movie Jung Jin-Young the detective after them catches Sang-Yeon. He’s shot but lives. The ending states that they still don't know the reason they kill, just that they have to. Revenge is the main theme in this novel and shows throughout the story how people's intentions are drawn to hatred, but also love. A rational response to betrayal or hurt wouldn't be revenge, but in this movie the idea is how people's intentions are always cruel. These four assassins make it their moral obligation to involve themselves in other people's problems. Do their dirty work so to speak. Revenge takes many shapes; envy, resentment, ego, betrayal, and many other forms of negativity inflicted upon someone. The overall structure of this movie encompasses what it means to sacrifice for others. These men put their livelihood on the line for others. In some ways sociopathic with no empathy for killing. But in other way more empathetic as a result to being so aware. They realize the wrongs of taking a life. Killing a pregnant lady or a sick old man puts a dent in their code. Unable to really do their job because of emotional attachments. Love plays a major part in revenge and the willingness to do or not do so.
John Sayles' Men With Guns (Hombres Armados). In Men with Guns, John Sayles depicts a feudal economic system in an agricultural South American setting. Using the travels of Dr. Fuentes, a concerned doctor from the city, to reveal numerous aspects of peasant life, Sayles shows the economic whirlwind in which these peasants are caught. Men With Guns demonstrates how the feudal economic system operates by revealing the economic and political power the rich plantation owners possess and lord over their lessers.
The plot of this movie is about the struggle between the farmers and the cowboys. The farmers all want to start up crops, but the cowboys want to run their cattle through the open space so they can feed. Obviously, the two sides don’t agree. The cowboys end up attempting to use strong-arm tactics to get their way. They even try to scare the farmers off the land by burning down one of the homes of the farmers. Eventually, Shane, a former gunfight, realizes what he must do. He rides into town and kills all of the cowboys, including Wilson, the hired gun.
There are robberies, murders, and rapes just about every day. People walk the streets naked and bloody because their clothes were stolen. Some people live in the hills like animals. They kill anything that comes along, human or not, for food and their territory. Everyone who has a chance to live must carry a gun so no one harm or try to do anything to them.
In the beginning scene of the film, we notice that at a gun store a Persian man named Farhad and his daughter Dorri are buying a handgun. As the store owner asks them what type of bullets they want Dorri turns to her father and tells him the question in Farsi. The gun store owner then begins to tell Farhad to speak in English since he’s in America. The argument begins to escalate quickly into hurtful words and the gun store owner commands Farhad to leave. Dorri watches as her father leaves the building and ends up selecting a red box of bullets for the
When looking at gun control laws through a functionalist paradigm we have to look at how having more gun control laws and not having gun control laws will effect the people that use them. Functionalist theory “interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society” (Crossman). This means that when looking at something though this perspective you have to also look at all of the different possibilities that could result from a certain change. There are multiple ways you can look at gun control though a functionalist perspective. One way would be to look at how this could effect people is by looking at how having stricter gun laws will effect people, as compared to not having has strict gun laws. By not having stricter gun laws people will be able to assert their amendment right to buy a gun, but this can lead to more people being able to get guns that should not haven them.
New York Times writer Jeff McMahan argues in his 2012 article, “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough”, that the United States should ban gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely. (McMahan, 1) McMahan creates his main argument around the idea that when more and more citizens become armed, “criminals work to be better armed and more efficient in their use of guns.” (McMahan, 1) Ultimately, he argues that although some with guns may be safer than if they were without the guns, but the without guns become much more vulnerable. So why not just arm everyone with guns as gun activists would say, then wouldn't everyone be safer? No. As McMahan points out, “When more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would have once have got in a fistfight
Aroung the time of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the controversial and widely argued issue of gun control sparked and set fire across America. In the past decade however, it has become one of the hottest topics in the nation. Due to many recent shootings, including the well known Sandy Hook Elementary school, Columbine High School, Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech, together totaling 87 deaths, many people are beginning to push for nationwide gun control. An article published in the Chicago Tribune by Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Collins, entitled “Gun Control is Long Overdue” voiced the opinion that in order for America to remain the land of the free, we must take action in the form of stricter gun laws. On the contrary, Kathleen Parker, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group whose articles have appeared in the Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan, and Fortune Small Business, gives a different opinion on the subject. Her article in The Oregonian “Gun Control Conversation Keeps Repeating” urges Americans to look at the cultural factors that create ...
“Guns don’t kill, people kill people.” This is a popular saying heard in a number of R rated movies where gun violence is the predominate theme. One excellent illustration can be seen in the movie Romeo Must Die when the actor DMX said that phase as he was getting ready to shoot someone. The phase was first coined by Wayne LaPierre who is a long-time executive director of the National Rifle Association. From his words and from his job title, a person can correctly guess that he is a pro-gun activist. He is defending the notion that a gun is not required to kill someone. This is absolutely true. A person can kill another person with just their bare hands. However, guns provide people with the means to do so in an easier and faster manner. Without
Men With Guns is not so much a film about economic processes as it is a film about the effects of a certain economic system - feudalism. It is more a film about cultural and political processes than anything else, a film that deals in depth with the grave consequences of a country in Central or South America whose Indians are subjects to the knights - the “men with guns” - who control and terrorize their existence.
In recent years the school shooting activity shows alarming rates. As reported by Duplechain and Morris (2014), more than 350 documented school shootings happened from 1760 until 2014, from those 190 happened from 1990-2014 alone. The numbers are staggering and even more staggering is to find out some of the details of those shootings. School shootings perpetrated by underage people even a student from the school that completed their killing rampage committing suicide. Although, it might seem that the problem comes from the accessibility to guns people could have, the reality is different. In most cases mental instability can play as a key element, while bullying and media coverage can also act as important factors. This paper will explore some of reasons behind school shooters from the past, and it will demonstrate how accessibility to guns had nothing to do with the outcome of their behavior, by responding to the following questions.
What is the importance of the gun? The gun is one of the most important tools in the defense of our nation. Guns are responsible for a lot of death and injuries, but these things were going on before the existence of the gun. Guns aren't the reason for the death and injuries, they are just a means to it. They are tools and an engineering marvel of our age. The gun has evolved from a simple weapon that caused limited destruction to the modern gun that is so fast and powerful it is capable of mass destruction. Through the evolution of the gun, it has become a political tool.
Handguns are easy to get, that 's why they are the weapon of choice for people who choose to use them for self-defense. The bad thing is that they are also the weapon of choice for criminals. Since handguns are easy for criminals to steal or get, handguns are available on the black market; this makes handguns a great choice for criminals. A lot of crimes involving firearms are happening with the use of a handgun; this is a problem in America today. Although a lot of people would agree that something must be done, no one has the answer of what should actually be done. Most gun control supporters believe that banning handguns is the best way to protect citizens. However, banning handguns fails to protect people; if anything you are hurting people who 's going to help you when you 're in trouble
Due to the recent disruption of violent crimes on campus, many citizens that are pro-gun activist have suggested that both the students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on school campuses. Those who are with guns allowed on school campuses claim that their rights have been violated for the reason that many college campuses refuse to allow weapons of any kind on their property. The Constitution of The United States of America already grants citizens the right to carry guns with them. It is not appropriate for guns to be in a vulnerable area such as a college campus or any University. There are already too many guns available to the public or easy to get any kind of gun, and allowing them on
Most shooters receive their guns illegally or have someone that will pass a background check buy it for them. People would normally use the weapons for hunting or protection from intruders. Certain people involved in politics are trying to argue that keeping a gun in the home could lead to future violence. Gun control advocates are pushing for regulations on how guns can be represented in the home.
“This is the way of peace: overcome evil with good, and falsehood with truth, and hatred with love.” This is one Peace Pilgrim said before. Almost everyone, not only in America but also in all around the world hoping peace. Barack Obama who is 44th the Democratic Party of the United States’ president. He making a speech: On Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer. And argues that in order to solve gun violence and making communities safer, reducing gun is the necessary solution should be actualized in America. Thus, Obama using recently event and fact leads to his argument, then using logical facts and statistic data make his argument convinced. Besides, using the sorrowful event of gun violence make the readers or listeners