Guns with Laws

The truth is out and our eyes are pried opened. Focusing on the very serious subject of guns, Michael Moore is able to put a humorous spin on his documentary type of film, “Bowling for Columbine”. He explores Americans views on gun laws and whether the ordinary citizen should be able to easily attain firearms and ammunition. It soon becomes obvious that although he is a bias film maker, Moore is not afraid to get out and do the dirty work of a thriving journalist. Short capturing clips give the viewers a dynamic view on guns. While using various techniques this film contains something for everyone. Contrasting his views on Americans and Canadians, he discovers that Canadians feel a lot safer in their communities than Americans. Hence they don’t feel the need to carry guns for protection like many of the Americans admit they did. Also based mostly in Colorado, Moore couldn’t miss the opportunity to include the infamous Columbine school shooting in his favour. Nearing the end Moore also gets together with two boys who have Kmart bullets imbedded into their bodies from the school shooting. Using the boys scarring he tries to convince Kmart to stop selling ammunition. 

Although most of the subjects he addresses are true, there were some aspects that seemed fictional. Moore crosses the border to interview multiple Canadians and he questions them about how safe they feel in their neighbourhood. He discovered that multiple people don't even feel the need to lock their doors. In the film there were clips of him opening random doors, and every single one opened. Thats not very realistic because there were probably multiple doors that didn't open which he didn't include in the film. But something Moore points are that make people start to wonder is that if Canadians also have millions of guns in Canada why are there still less shootings there compared to America? Canada is known to be a lot more peaceful than America and Moore wants explore the idea of why. He indicates that in the mean time Americans should start following the Canadians lead.

We have all heard of the devastating school shooting at Columbine. One day two male students decide to go into their school armed and shoot down the staff and students. Killing 12 students and one teacher they finish the massacre by taking their own lives. Interviewing the people closely associated with the two young men it still remains a mystery on why they committed such a horrible crime. But it was also very concerning how easily the two boys were able to buy fire arms and ammunition in America. Moore presses that it should be a lot harder so that something like that never happened again. Unfortunately it is noticeable that the trend is only growing. One would think that young innocent kids being murdered would be enough for the government to make these gun laws a lot stricter. 

Continuing with the school shooting, Moore meets two young boys who were shot at Columbine that day. They are forced to live their life everyday with those haunting bullets firmly embedded into their skin. The two who were shooting bought the bullets from Kmart. To try and make a change Moore travels to Kmart headquarters with the two boys. He wanted to talk with someone to stop Kmart from selling the types of bullets inside the students. At first he struggled to get anyones cooperation, but when he showed up with the media that all changed. Moore used to the two boys as models to almost guilt the workers of Kmart. At last Kmart agreed to immediately stop selling ammunition. 

Moore makes a very good point about how the gun laws are not strict enough in America. Maybe if ordinary citizens weren't able to obtain guns so easily, they wouldn't need their own guns to protect themselves from others with similar guns. Moore did a good job on deceiving the audience and pointing his fingers at Charlton Heston, the president of the NRA. Soon after the Columbine shooting the NRA, National Rifle Association, held their annual event in Colorado. The speeches shown in the film were portrayed to seem as if Heston was being very insensitive about the shootings, really the speeches were very unrelated. Also not mentioned in the film was the fact that Heston couldn't move the event so quickly by law. Although some clips are twisted to go in Moore’s favour, he still brings light to a growing matter in American society. 

The Dangerous New Paparazzi

You are what you share on the internet. This was not a problem a few years ago, but with the way social media has exploded recently it has become a very serious one. Emma Teitel explores the dangers of social media in her article “The New Paparazzi”. With our generation “obsessed with documenting its social life” it's no surprise that it's starting to become uncontrollable. She addresses her multiple concerns about this increasing problem. Teitel mentions that most of the pictures put up of an individual are put up by other people, and rarely with consent. Another subject she points out is that there are multiple people who “can keep track of someone’s life without them” being aware. Overall Teitel doesn't believe that this new paparazzi is a good influence. 

One of Teitel’s biggest scares of this new paparazzi is the amount of photos people put up of others. Although its untrue that “digital cameras have become house-party staples” most people do have phones with camera in them. So if you go out to any parties which most high school kids do, there is a very high chance of a photo of everyone going online. But it's the individual choice on whether the photo is going to be bad or good, or how bad it's going to be. Sometimes there are situations where the pictures are put up “without the [persons] consent.” This is a lot more dangerous now because of prospective schools and employers looking on these websites to check if these candidates are appropriate for the opportunity they are giving. High school kids are definitely the group of people most affected with this problem. But in this day and age it is very rare to meet someone who hasn't been to a party at least once. We are a social generation. We just have to be careful on what kind of social image is portrayed of us. 

But what happens when those pictures are put up online? There are millions of people who can view them. The scary part is that we don't know who is viewing them and what their intentions are. Some students refer to this as “creeping and stalking.” They may think it’s just done to temporarily admire the person but unfortunately there are definitely people who do it for very wrong reasons. Out of all the people on the internet more than not leave their profiles open for anyone to view. Although these social networks were made to connect people easier, they aren't “used to socialize, but to survey” people instead. The fact that one picture posted years ago can be viewed by a stranger half way across the world isn't right. And because of the easy access news about a person portraying a fake personality to gain the trust of an innocent social network user is heard way too often. Creeping someone on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter has now become the new dangerous trend. 

These issues that Tietel has pointed out are without a doubt problems with the new popularity of social networks. The new paparazzi are everywhere but are ordinary high school kids really this lethal? Some of the arguments in the article were exaggerated. Kids are now more aware of the dangers of social media, and with that information they are a lot more careful with what they put up. For an example if they want to post a picture and someone has a cup of alcohol in their hand they would crop it out. They are aware that absolutely anyone can view what they post. Privacy setting help somewhat but Teitel believes that kids only care about “privacy once its has been violated.” But even with all the privacy settings on if someones really determined to get onto another profile they will find a way. Another growing problem that is without a solution is the predators lurking on the internet for an unsuspecting victim. It’s a scary to think that someone can view our pictures, posts and thoughts without the person ever knowing that they exist. This new paparazzi are just kids being social who rarely have bad intentions. Maybe the picture they posted of the passed out kid was horrible but it was most likely done just to be funny, not to hurt anyone. Everyday more and more people are becoming aware of the dangers of social media, so hopefully soon no one will have to fear this new paparazzi.