|
|
||||
Home | Recommend This Site | Bookmark This Page
Bowling For Columbine—part Ivby Jeff Snyder This is the final installment in my review of Michael Moore's film, Bowling for Columbine. I have taken so much time with this movie because it is one of the most wide-reaching and effective cultural assaults on the ethos of keeping and bearing arms in the last decade. In this column, I want to discuss the technique Moore uses to portray gun owners as people who are, let's say, insufficiently morally developed. I believe the incidents in his film that I will discuss here are some of the most damaging parts of his assault on gun owners. We need to know how he does it and think about what we can do about it. Moore's movie claims to be an investigation into why America has so much gun violence. At various points throughout the film, he asks gun owners, including then NRA President, Charlton Heston, why they think America has so much gun violence. Moore volunteers that it's not the guns, because other countries, like Canada, have lots of guns, but far less gun violence. So why do we have so much gun violence? Those questioned produce stock answers, such as, "because we have a violent history." Moore is quick with a follow-up: But wait, doesn't Germany have a violent history, doesn't Japan? And their rates of gun violence are far below ours. So that can't really be the answer. Advertisement Moore just asks these simple questions and lets the camera record the reactions. Those who are caught by Moore in the sudden realization that they have no real understanding of the issue, and that they are just parroting things they have heard without really thinking about it, act defensively or dismissively. The effect is devastating to gun owners, because this is the impression it conveys: Here you are, obviously ready to deal deadly violence. Yet you have given no serious thought to why we have so much violence in our society, what your own role in creating a violent society might be (for example, whether your attitudes and behavior, even apart from gun ownership, contribute to it), or what you might be able to do to reduce the amount of violence in society. All you have are pat answers and glib retorts that turn out, on ten seconds' worth of thought, to be mindless platitudes. Essentially, you have a cavalier attitude about the problem and all you really care about is how you and your family can ride it out, everyone else be damned. In short, Moore's question, and the answers he puts on display, provide a clear impression that gun owners are, by and large, uncaring, unthoughtful, and morally juvenile or deficient. Watch Moore's film: the impression conveyed on the silver screen is not one of the inherent nobility and dignity of the armed defender. Far from it. And let me say this: this is not Moore's fault. Now, it is not necessary for one to believe that his life, and the lives of his loved ones, are worth protecting that one have a good explanation of why there is so much violence in our society. Moreover, Moore could have asked these questions of pretty much anyone except, perhaps, sociologists and criminologists who study violence (whom he never asks), and received glib, unthinking answers that are just as easily shot down. It is gun owners he puts on display. Exploiting So is this a biased presentation and unfair? Yes. Does that matter? No. The fact is, Moore is exploiting a real weakness. It may be a shortcoming of people in general, but that's hardly a rousing defense. If we are to avoid the stigma of being anti-social "lone gunmen" (see my last column), we need to think about what we are going to do about it. I don't have any magic answers, but I will say this: We need to take violence more seriously, act with greater probity in discussing it, and take some positive actions to address it. And by positive actions I don't mean, pushing for more people to be thrown in jail. In the interest of prompting some thought on the subject, I will offer three suggestions. First, if we pay lip service to the idea that armed self-defense is to be a last resort, then our words and actions better reflect that belief. Talking about blowing away scumbags and generally posturing as Son of Dirty Harry suggest an unseemly delight in the prospect of someday being tested, an eagerness to use one's abilities that is inconsistent with a sober assessment of the realities and morality of armed self-defense, and its likely aftermath. Violence These attitudes are extraneous, if not actually harmful, to real training and real ability. Far from suggesting that the speaker believes self defense is a last resort to be used only in the gravest extreme, they suggest the speaker is actually enamored of violence. People who are not enamored of violence will see this in an instant, and perceive this form of behavior as emotionally and morally juvenile, if not downright sick. Develop real abilities for real situations, speak of it, if at all, with a seriousness befitting the fact that, implicitly or explicitly, one is talking about potentially killing another human being. Lose the bluster. In my experience, people who spout that sort of talk are usually just giving themselves strokes. |
||
Related Topics on Bowling For Columbine—part Iv
|
|||||||||||
|
|
If you're looking for a solid business opportunity that literally empowers you to succeeed,
look no further than this program! |
