Pros And Cons Of Bowling For Columbine

Bowling for Columbine, a film directed by Michael Moore, speculates on the circumstances that gave rise to the 1999 Columbine High School massacre and, on a larger scale, seeks to answer an enigma: Why are the homicide rates involving guns proliferated in America unlike the other countries? Moore’s desire for a stricter gun control law becomes clear in the film as well as his belief that the fear embedded among the citizens is the reason that Americans are so obsessed with guns. However, when dealing with a wedge issue like this, it is important to absorb credible and unbiased information before being swayed or influenced by one side. Bowling for Columbine is not a credible source, nonetheless, and must not be weighted heavily when seeking

more information on the complex issue of gun control.
Moore is an unreliable director; hence, it is crucial to take this into consideration when viewing this documentary. He is ultra left on the political spectrum and attempts to lure his audience into the ideologies of the left on behalf of the liberals, tackling issues such as gun control, America’s healthcare system, and Iraq wars. Without a doubt, his political ideals, for which he so passionately advocates, makes him unreliable and disparages the accuracy of the information in the film as it is heavily catered to left of the political spectrum. This also ties into the lack of objectivity of the film. There are numerous instances in which Moore ridicules gun owners and demonizes them, ultimately failing to represent both sides of the issue fairly. To exemplify, in the beginning of the film, Moore displays rural, white men that carry guns to protect their town in a humorous and mocking way, leading the audience to deride the possession of guns. In addition, Moore does not portray the pro-gun standpoint as much as the anti-gun perspectives, having one side of the gun control issue dominate the film. As conveyed, Bowling for Columbine is directed by an extremely biased and thereby undependable person and consequently, the film is not objective when discussing this issue.
Not only is the film extremely partial to the liberal’s position on gun control, but the information in the film is also skewed and not trustworthy.

Firstly, Moore does not interview anyone with credentials, a reliable background, or a professional with great insight on this issue. Rather, he interviews normal individuals, leading his film to be less credible. In fact, in one of the scene, he interviews three students that he finds in front of McDonald’s that are skipping school. Discussing an issue with such gravity with these students and other ordinary people is not sufficient to lead audiences to fairly balance the pros and the cons of having an easy access to guns. Furthermore, Moore also misrepresents several facts in the film, namely, the statistics of the deaths caused by gun violence in each country. To specify, he does not take the population or the number of deaths caused by other matters into consideration, making the information misleading. Most importantly Moore’s primary tactic for addressing his message is through pathos rather than logos. He shows heart-wrenching videos of a school shooting, evoking fear for guns in the audience and uses the shooting of a sweet six year old girl to capture the audience’s sympathy towards the victims of gun violence. As demonstrated, Moore presents distorted information and turns to pathos as his main method of persuasion, rather than facts, diminishing its

credibility.
In this manner, Bowling for Columbine reflects a biased documentary as it is directed by an unreliable person, who fails to be objective, present accurate information, and use expertise to backup his claim. Having said this, it is important that the audience acknowledges these points and refrains from credulously accepting the film’s claim as the truth. Whether or not an individual agrees or disagrees with the standpoint of this film, everyone must weigh in the lack of credibility presented in this film into their judgments in order to avoid getting hypnotized by the judgement that Moore purports.