Matt, And Michael Moore's 'Bowling For Columbine'

2114 Words5 Pages

The day is Tuesday, April 20, 1999. All the students of Columbine High are at school expecting yet another boring day, eager to just get through the last few days left in the school year. At 11:00 in the morning, students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold placed two duffel bags in the cafeteria and went back outside. Then at 11:19 the two students started to open fire on students outside of the school. It was later found out that the duffel bags they dropped off were filled with explosives that failed to go off at the planned time of 11:17. They then proceeded with their rampage inside the school. By 11:35 they had killed 12 students, one teacher, and injured more than 20 others. After 12 p.m. their list of killed students increased by two when …show more content…

In the documentary “Bowling for Columbine” one the few shows that were mentioned by people looking for something to blame was South Park. In the documentary, Michael Moore even got to sit down and talk to Matt Stone, co-creator of South Park and get his take on the shooting. Oddly enough both Matt and Trey Parker, the other co-creator of South Park, went to Columbine high for high school themselves. So, during the discussion Moore had with Matt, Matt was able to talk about Columbine high from a personal experience. How it was, like most high schools, “Painfully, painfully, painfully normal, just absolutely painfully horribly average.” He also points out some the unneeded stress high schools can bring. He also says that when it comes to Eric and Dylan, he wishes, “Someone could have just grabbed him and gone, ‘dude, high school is not the end’ […] It’s amazing how fast you lose touch with all those people.” Going back to the specific argument that shows like South Park corrupted these kids, even if that were true, it’s not the shows fault. The show itself is rated TV-MA, meaning it is inappropriate for children under the age of 17. Here comes and argument that can also be used against all the previously stated arguments. Instead of blaming the shows, the violent video games, or the music, none of which were intended for kids and are being accused of corrupting kids, why not blame the parents? This argument is incredibly strong against violent video games being accused for corrupting kids, since there is an age limit of 17 to even buy an “M” rated game. If a kid has a violent video game, theres a strong chance their parents bought it for them. Even at the counter if there is a kid present when the parent is buying an “M” rated game the clerk has to point out it is rated “M” and what it is rated “M” for. If an adult hands a kid a beer, would you blame the beer for getting the kid drunk, or the parent who gave the

Open Document