Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
He uses satire in his film to raise issues pertaining to the control of guns in America and find out the reasons why there is so much violence in America. He does this by exploring the American culture and history of violence, the unjustified white fear of blacks and the lack of justification for gun ownership. Moore believes that America has been responsible for a large number of wars and violent incidents around the world, culminating in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. He uses the What a Wonderful World montage to prove that Americans do not use weapons in self-defence, as some would argue, but use weapons aggressively. Just before the sequence of revealing images, Moore is shown conducting an interview with Evan McCollum, Director of Communications at a Lockheed Martin plant near Columbine, who says, “But we have to learn to deal with that annoyance or that anger or that frustration in appropriate ways.
Gun casualties and incidents throughout the country have woken the public up from its ignorance and shown them the danger guns can pose to society (Martinez, 2013). While some people want a complete blanket ban on the ownership of guns, others wants an easier access to guns so that every person may look after their own security. Part of what makes the term gun control a very controversial topic is that it’s used in a ambiguous way that does not explain the details of the issue and the demands, apart from literally controlling guns. The two prominent sides of the debate are the groups who ask for liberal gun laws that make it easier for a person to procure guns and conversely, there are groups who want to repeal the second amendment. I personally am a strong believer that an “ideal society” should have no guns; nevertheless crime is a big problem to the citizens of our society and guns are necessary.
In the republic of California, some would say we have some of the worst laws and restrictions in the country. Gun control on American citizens has been attempted ever since the Bill of Rights’ 2nd amendment said, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This sentence and its meaning have been debated by lawmakers and firearm-bearing citizens to this day, and we can not agree on what our founding fathers intended the amendment to mean. In my mind I see it only one way, the second amendment gives the people the right to own and keep any firearm they feel they should have. One point argued about the second amendment is at the end of the quote, it claims that our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” This phrase, however, is debated to whether they are talking about the right to simply own a firearm, or to place any limitations on firearms capabilities. The word infringed means to inflict upon a right or privilege.
I am one that is for stricter gun laws in America, as it is scary to think of future generations where gun ownership is just as common as owning a car. On the Whitehouse website, the first thing that popped up when researching about gun laws and violence with weapons was, “Now is the time to do something about gun violence.” Now to me, this sounds like congress has every intention to do “something” about guns and gun violence, but what? After the Sandy Hook shooting, in Barack Obama’s speech he mentioned that it was an “obligation” for America to do something to prevent events like this from occurring again. The site also says, “Most gun owners are responsible and law abiding.” The key word here is “most”. What about the others who are not responsible and law abiding?
Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine talks about guns control and its related violence, which arouse the attention to the public insecurity, media propaganda and government problems, the main argument of the film is that Americans already lost trust among each other, which cause the over control of guns compare to other nations. there are many impressive scenes in the movie that make people have a deep thought about what is wrong in the U.S. by using various techniques of persuasion such as the use of ethos, pathos and logos. one techniques Moore uses is ethos or the ethical appeal, means convince an audience of the author's credibility or character. it's not hard to see, Moore well-used of interviews from both sides of the guns issue, from not only victims but also the related association to build a full credibility to the audience, the interviews of victims in Columbine slaughter and the president of National Rifle Association could be the best example to show it and Moore try to explain that he is trying to get all the facts start with the bottom of the problems; not just this one support his argument, other example use of ethos would be appeal to celebrities, such as the interviews with rock star Manson and use a clip from a comedian show called "bullet control"; also example is appeal to authority, for instance, Moore interviews the headmaster of a elementary school in Michigan, where a 6 years old child was shoot to death by his
Anderson adopts a patriotic tone in an effort to appeal to readers that may disagree with her argument. Anderson begins her piece by stating, “First I am not a member of the N.R.A, nor am I politically affiliated with any left or right wing side. I am simply a very concerned American.” Right away it’s evident that the writer is making the article non-biased and clearing any thoughts of such beforehand, thus using the appeal of ethos as a method of declaring her identity. Anderson further goes on to say that, “The Government and the media expect the public to be too ignorant to have the common sense to know, the more gun control laws for the law abiding citizens will create the law abiding public to be lambs to the slaughter.” In this piece, the writer speaks in a vexed tone expressing her annoyance and directs questions to the reader by asking, “What criminal will be worried about the gun control laws?”
Gun Control Laws Are Ineffective Tracy M. Turner Gun Control Laws Are Ineffective In the wake of horrific shootings across America, more and more leftist politicians and commentators are calling for stricter laws on gun control. Certain gun control laws are in place in some states and in other countries, but are they actually putting a dent in crime? Limiting a citizen's right to bear arms violates our second amendment freedom and puts the unarmed person in danger by giving the criminal the advantage of owning a weapon. Gun control has proven ineffective in deterring crime. The Brady Bill imposes a five-day waiting period on the acquisition of firearms.
He makes a point to inform viewers that the U.N. nation’s gun-grab agreement is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right-idiotic (2012). He really does have a variety of personal clips of political representatives using them as media propaganda to inform the viewers the pros and cons on gun control. He states that when guns were banned in Great Britain, murders increased by 41%. In New Orleans during the hurricane, the crime rate increased from people entering houses. They showed a picture of a map of a location where someone’s daughter would be in the event an emergency broke out.
Gun Control = Crime Control Jamie Cain Eng/102 10/01/2013 Mary-Angie Salvá-Ramírez, Ph.D. Since the beginning of time in the United States guns have been a part of the American tradition as a means of a protection and for hunting and sport. Today however, the use of guns has significantly changed. Many people feel that these gun control laws violate American citizen’s second amendment “the right to bear arms”. However, controlling the distribution and sales of registered guns and owners is necessary because of the criminals that use for them for violence and the homicide rates we have in this nation today.