Month: March 2019
Analysis of the Six Films
Killing Us Softly 4:
Advertising’s Image of Women analysis Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising’s Image of Women, produced by Cambridge Documentary Films, Inc. and released in 2010, is written by and stars Jean Kilbourne. In this latest movie in the Killing Us Softly series, Jean Kilbourne focuses on the way women are presented and represented in the advertisement industry, more so in the advertisements that run on different types of media. The film takes a critical look at an emerging pattern in gender stereotyping, using images and videos to show how advertising companies help propagate an unrealistic view, and perception, of sexuality, perfection and beauty.
Expanding on the central issues covered in this film, objectification stands out as one of the biggest of them all. Jean asserts that advertisements often tell women that the most important thing about them is how they look. This message is then surrounded and forced by images and videos that portray the ideal look, which is more often than not unrealistic and unattainable. The message here boils down to this, a woman is only desirable when they look a certain way, essentially turning them into a thing to be used to sell products.
The film also takes a look at how black women, women of color, are perceived and represented in the advertising industry. Essentially, they are not considered beautiful enough if they do not fit into the mould of white idealism; straight hair, lighter skin and perceived caucasian features. On the issue of image, Jean talks about black women getting featured in jungle settings, often wearing “exotic” clothing as if they were animals.
Blacking Up:
Hip Hop’s Remix of Race and Identity analysis Blacking Up: Hip Hop’s Remix of Race and Identity, produced and released by Limbic Productions in 2010, is directed by Robert Anderson Clift and stars some of the biggest names in the American Hip Hop culture. The film takes a critical look at racial identity as viewed through the lens of hip-hop music and culture. More specifically, the film focuses on the tensions that arise surrounding white identification in the hip-hop space. Moreover, the film also explores other themes such as exploitation, cultural admiration as well as what hip-hop means to white performers and white fans of rap music who claim the culture to be theirs. In the film, the filmmaker takes us through a series of questions, all of them culmination in asking what makes the black culture so attractive to white rappers. Speaking while wearing blackface, Al Johnson, a white rapper, tries to negate the idea that the perception of black rappers being lowly members of society is wrong. Although the blackface Johnson wears while making his point irritates the black community, one scholar notes that what Johnson is doing is embracing the black facade and in a way trying to fight the racial stereotypes associated with black rappers. Robert Anderson also takes a look at authenticity, in this case, the authenticity of white rappers and how they fit into the hip hop culture. Although several rappers in the film feel that these white rappers are unauthentic as “they do not come from the culture”, the gnawing need for white rappers to be incorporated into the hip hop domain might prove that they have what it takes to fit in.
More Than a Word:
Native American- Based Sports Mascot analysis More Than a Word: Native American- Based Sports Mascot is a film produced and directed by John and Kenn Little and released in 2017. The film takes a closer look at the battles that have been fought in and out of courts by Native Americans in a bid to stop the NFL’s use of the word Redskins under any and all circumstances. The argument by the Native Americans is that the name is derogatory and should not have been trademarked as the NFL has done, going even as far as incorporating the word in the names of some teams.
The film features pictures and videos combined with interviws from people in the know about the issue and the court battles, including professors, Native Amricans, historians as well as the fans of the washington football team using the word. In the film, the viewer is taken through the historical and dictionary definitions of the word, as well as how each of the groups mentioned above interprets the word. The film then takes a turn by exploring the issue of whether the owners of the football team are racist or if the people fighting for the team not to use the word are in fact themselves racists, hiding behind a word and court rulings, appeals and battles to put others down. In the film, one Native American even asserts that the use of the word is indeed racist and by Native Americans fighting for its abolishment, they are in fact fighting against neo-colonialism and reshaping the way they are viewed and represented.
Reel Bad Arabs:
How Hollywood Vilifies a People Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People is a film directed by Sut Jhally and produced by Media Education Foundation and was released in 2006. The film takes a look at how Arabs and Muslims are depicted in films and how their image is vilified and manipulated. The movie argues that the slander of Arabs in Hollywood has existed for almost a century and no one has batted an eye or even questioned this status quo. The arguments presented in this film are based on a huge collection of American films, some of them released in the early 1900s.
The image of Arabs portrayed in this fil includes that of Arab men, viewed as evil, uncouth, nomadic and violent, and that of Arab women, viewed in the analyzed films as shallow and naive, serving greedy sheikhs. Jack Shaheen, the author of the book that this film is based on, argues that politics play a significant role in how these images are produced and disseminated. He says that politics and Hollywood often feed each other, with politics providing the propaganda that the films then latch on to produce their blockbusters. The blockbusters are then filled with the depictions mentioned above of Arabs. Another interesting point brought up in the film is the association between Muslims, Arabs and terror. The film looks at how Hollywood equates all Muslims to Arabs, all Arabs to evil and terror and then concludes that all Muslims must be evil. The film urges viewers to take a hard look at the messaging that came out after events such as the 9/11 attacks and differentiate between a small group of terrorists and the massive world that is the Arab nation.
The Girls in the Band:
Female Jazz Musicians analysis The Girls in the Band: Female Jazz Musicians is a 2013 film directed by Judy Chaikin and produced by Artist Tribe and One Step Productions. The film takes a critical look at how female jazz players have been treated, represented and treated in the music industry. Although there are lots of great female jazz players, their treatment has not been the same as that of their male counterparts, as the film producers’ explored and discovered. The film is a story of these female jazz players and includes interviews, stories, challenges and experiences of some of the best women jazz players in those days.
The film first takes a look at the unwritten rule that women jazz players could not be hired in the 1940s and 40s. The prejudice extended to the few women who were hired, who were often coached to fit into an acceptable mould set up by males in this male-dominated field. For example, they were told to smile while playing, an impossible feat, what to wear, more often than not pink, short, girly outfits, and how to act as they performed. There was also the feminine jazz look - the girls had to look like film stars; slender, tall and light-skinned, an image propagated by the media of the day. In addition to all of the above, most of the women in the film talk about the general lack of role models as they grew up. They argue that this is because of a system that would not let women in, thereby leaving a gaping hole that men could not fill.
Screaming Queens:
The Riot at Compton’s Cafeteria Screaming Queens: The Riot at Compton’s Cafeteria is a 2005 documentary that was written and directed by Victor Silverman and Susan Stryker. The film explores issues of transgender people most notably those of harassment, using the 1966 riot at the Compton’s Cafeteria. In the film, the background to the riot is that the urban renewal had destroyed low rent apartments. In addition, managers and owners of residences preferred tenants who were respectable, non-transgenders.
This forced transgender people to move into the Tenderloin. The Compton cafeteria, located at the corner of Turk and Taylor streets was the one place that transgenders, male hustlers(as they are called in the film) and regulars took a rest. On this night, the owners of the restaurant were annoyed with a group of people making noise at one table and decide to call the police. One of the police officers, who was known to be rough with the Compton clientele, attempts to arrest one of the drag queens, she throws her cup of coffee at him. This becomes the start of the Compton Riot of 1966.
The riot grows bigger as all the transgender people unite to fight the police; windows break, chairs are thrown around and when police reinforcements arrive, the riot moves to the streets. The film features interviews from different people who were there on that night, and one thing is clear, all of them feel that the riot was a result of pent up anger and frustration; anger and frustration from marginalization and harassment. The film also takes a look at how a community grew out of the riots.
Cite this page
Analysis Of The Six Films. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Story about One Film
Abstract
The system is a process in which people get employed, and the system pay for an employee to work. The employee works gives production, and because of those production there can supply, and the supply is only fulfilled by demand. Money that employee earned creates demand but without money no demand. So, if you work you get paid but if you don't work you not gone get paid. Money plays an important role in everyone's life.
Money is equal to comfort, No money no comfort. There are many people who are facing difficult time. For example, unemployment. People without a job are called unemployed. But if a person is unemployed he/she can apply for government aid. Government aid is a program who pay some money to survive for those people who don't have a job. All people who are employed get paid must pay taxes. And those taxes go to government, by tax money government land some money to people who applied for government aid. This process is called Redistribution. The problem with the system is of unfair debt, trade's and tax policies. The main problem with the system is that the percentage of taxpayer is decreasing and the percentage of people receiving government aid is increasing. If this process keeps on going then many people will be below the poverty line.
Now a days Internet is a most important technological tool that people use in their day to day life. By accessing to internet, you have many option you can search for anything you can buy most of the stuff online. Online shopping is one of the easy way to shop for many people. And most of the people prefer online shopping over going to a store physically. The reason behind people preferring to shop online is the online stores have different deals going on, and you don't even have to go out form you home. Internet provide scope of employment. Some of the benefits of Internet are fast buying or selling products, finding proper match, various of option. And the disadvantage is no guarantee of product, receiving different product than expected.
The technology has change over time. And it has change every one's life. Technology in Food Industry has change too, now people can place there order online and then come and pick it up, now a day's people don't have to come and pick it up they can also have food deliver to their door step. Due to this type of technology many of the people got unemployed. Because machine is taking over worker. The world is changing time to time. The value of worker is decreasing and therefore it creates unemployment, and this type of unemployment is called structural unemployment.
In the film, there are many news on job loss. Machines are taking over workers, machine are replacing for many jobs to save time money and labor. This type of unemployment is controllable but the jobs is sinking and economy is getting worst. This is pushing demand creating more profit. Many people prefer two part-time job over one full-time job to earn more money and this is one of the reason why the unemployment rate is not rising.
Technology change the world day by day. Machines are taking over workers. A machine saves time and money and they have a higher productive rate. The growth of technology won't stop for any one. Now a day's we can see a car which can drive without a driver. A restaurant can be operated without waiters. Technology is destroying many job in our surroundings. The unemployment rate is rising by time to time. The amount of work and worker is shrinking and this leads to our economy is getting worst.
Cite this page
Story About One Film. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Film Analysis Harold and Maude
In Hal Ashby's film titled Harold and Maude, a very odd relationship is formed between a young man entering his early twenties and a 79-year-old woman who are both intrigued by attending funerals. Harold, who is portrayed by Bud Cort, is a young man with a very wealthy family that is strangely fascinated by death. He performs multiple suicide stunts in front of his mother and acts as if he killed himself. On the other hand, Maude who is played by Ruth Gordon is an old woman who does not live by following the rules and chooses to live life to the fullest by doing whatever she pleases. Throughout the film, there are many gems and symbols represented in the film that makes it very attentive and amusing.
To begin with, a very powerful symbol is introduced in the middle of the film when Harold and Maude decide to return a tree to the forest from the city. In my opinion, the tree resembles a new life for Harold that is filled with joy. Before meeting Maude he was a very quiet boy who felt being dead feels better than living and enjoying life. He'd symbolize this by wearing very dark attires, performing multiple pranks that lead people to believe he's dead, and also attending funerals just for the fun of it.
Now when Maude takes the tree to the forest to give the tree life back in its natural habitat, it's almost as if the tree represents Harold because ever since forming his bond with Maude he's been taught to enjoy life to the fullest. Maude encouraged Harold to break out of his shell and become a much more lively person by teaching him to think freely, by helping him learn how to play the banjo, dance candidly without caring about what others think. The tree was originally in the city where it can be symbolized as Harold's depressing home until it was transported to the forest where it represents his new life with Maude.
Another symbol that represents a very intimate and romantic moment between Harold and Maude is when they are watching the fireworks and suddenly cuts to a scene of them laying in bed together. The correlation between these scenes is they are meant to lead the audience to think they slept together, which they did. As they are watching the fireworks they get more intimate by hugging and getting closer to each other. I believe the fireworks symbolize them sleeping together because fireworks are an expression of romance as they represent a celebration, in this case, a celebration of love. In addition, the sudden cut to the following scene that shows them laying in bed together without being fully clothed leads the audience to believe they did sleep together.
In the closing sequence, Harold drives his Jaguar off a cliff after Maude's death. The scene leads the audience to believe he killed himself but he is then shown at the top of the cliff with the banjo Maude gifted him. There are actually two symbols in this scene, the totaled car at the bottom of the cliff symbolizes another attempt to make people believe he is dead.
Also, as he dances off while playing the banjo, his relationship with Maude is once again being symbolized through the banjo and playful dance moves. Even though he is saddened by her tragic death he still acknowledges that Maude would've wanted him to continue living life to the fullest rather than dying along with her. Maude even told him, as they were on their way to the hospital in the ambulance after she took too many pills to kill herself, that he must go and love some more. Harold is even shown wearing more colorful clothes, rather than the dark suit he usually wears, which can also connect to Maude as he's keeping her spirit alive by living life the way she did.
Cite this page
Film Analysis Harold and Maude. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
The First Film the Elevator
Introduction
The first film The Elevator depicts the story of a man who can't seem to have a safe elevator ride. At first, he is in danger of the elevator falling as more and more people began to enter. He is scared so he leaves the elevator in fear of it falling due to the weight of the people inside. So, he leaves and goes into the next elevator which is filled with patients of swine flu. He can't have a nice, peaceful and safe elevator ride in the end. It's somewhat a comedy and in the end, it shows that in life you won't always get what you want, and things don't happen the way you would like. One element of mise-en-scene that I would like to show that was present in the film was the use of the costumes. The main character was dressed in dark clothing, especially his shirt which was all black.
In contrast the other characters that entered the elevator wore bright colorful clothing. They kind of stood out in the elevator while the main character clothes blended in with the background and only his face were visible. This use of color and costume shows that the other characters have an open-minded attitude and they aren't really worried about the weight capacity of the elevator. While the main character is thinking close-minded and kind of thinking dark (the worst) about the situation and ends up leaving the elevator.
Now in terms of props and makeup you can tell that the main character is middle class because he is well groomed, has an expensive phone (at the time), and he has professionally casual clothing. He judgment towards the other characters makes him be of higher status because of the way he is looking down upon them. From the film, you can see that it is set in a hospital because it is filled with obese sickly people who are seeking help. The sign saying swine flu treatment center further proves the point.
Another element of mise-en-scene that is present in the film is the cinematographer's choice of lighting. The lighting is very flat and dull, it's something that you would expect in that type of environment. It's high-key because everything is evenly lit and there is no contrast or difference between the highlights and shadows. Inside the elevator, itself is a lot brighter than outside in the hallway. The choice of lighting fits the mood and story that is being portrayed.
It also gives us a clear vision of what's going on. It makes it easier for the viewer to analyze what's going on and give further insight into the story because you can see what all the characters are wearing, their possession, etc. Most comedies use high key lighting to create a positive and lively feeling. The use of high key lighting portrays our main character as a bright and calm person because the lighting is very flattering. In opposition if low key lighting was used then he could be seen more as a villain. In terms of cinematography, the film is shown in an omniscient point of view because we can interpret what the character is feeling by seeing what he is doing and how he interacts with his environment.
It almost like we are watching what is going on as it takes place, it isn't shown from the point of view of the character. Our main character isn't driven by certain emotions shown the film is shown from eye level, he isn't in power or afraid of another character. Another thing would be the use of depth and focal length used in the elevator scenes. The use of the focal length compresses him into the scene and makes him look small compared to the size and weight of the other characters.
He shows in the wide angles as the tiny character overwhelmed by these large people and in the end, he escapes the problem. In one of the shots, there was an overhead angle to shows how cramped and compact the space in the elevator was because of how many people were on it. The films use of mise-en-scene and cinematography effectively portrayed the story that was being communicated. It also added a little bit of story to the and his motivations. Its choice of shots and framing created a sort of suspension which ultimately showed the message.
Cite this page
The First Film The Elevator. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Analysis of the Film
Short film: The Chaperone
Have you ever seen anything so moving, so much so that it touches your soul? The Chaperones is exactly that. This short film takes place in the early 1970's with two exclusive narrators Ralph and Stefan. In this short film the events that are shown are based on a true story, accompanied by some handmade animations and plenty of miniature sets. The Chaperone a film by Fraser Munden encourages the importance of standing up for ourselves.
As the short film starts the narrator explains in simple detail the mindset of a student, how they correlate teachers with school. With a first-person narrated feel, it is explained that educators are seen in a certain type of light, they are special and absolutely not human. Ralph, the school teacher in this film, was oddly dressed in basketball shorts as he always did in order to play basketball, like any other person; This of course was incredibly strange to all his students, as they were shocked to see a teacher in human clothes, woah. Setting up the mood for the short film.
Diving into this film, we are given a sense of utopia. Taking place in the Montreal, 1973, the story begins to unfold. The setting takes place in a church basement dance that is held every Friday night. Most of the participants in this dance ranged from the age of 12-14 years old, an innocent age. Of course, the chaperones that were entrusted that night consisted of Stefan “ a disk jockey, Peter “ working at the refreshments counter, and Ralph “ the appointed chaperone, which is also the teacher from beforehand wearing the basketball attire. A very wholesome group of individuals. This is where the trouble begins.
As any other tame Friday night, everyone was having a good time at the dance. Suddenly, a group of bikers came strolling in with intention of creating chaos, most ranging from 18-40 years old. These bikers, twenty or so of them, are explained to be different with their leather jackets, tattoos, gang affiliation, drugs, and no sense of respect “ simply scary.
With the intention of dominating that church, the bikers begin to torment the students/young crowd, dousing them with beer, picking up the incredibly young girls and placing them on their much older lap, and finally peacocking, as explained by the two narrators, Stefan and Ralph, as staying in a group and showing off their ability to intimidate others with their frightening appearance. We are then introduced to a new form of intimidation, miniature sets.
The miniature sets were built to personify the feel of when anyone goes into a frightening neighborhood but is surprisingly represented by puppets. Absolutely terrifying. These puppets create the outlook of regular folk being driven by a pink sheep dog in the bad part of the city. This pink sheep dog represents a more powerful leader and the human like puppets represent the quite ignorant and scared part of humanity. They enter into this neighborhood which is littered with blue wolfs, these wolfs are wearing gold chains and wife beaters on, handling miscellaneous sorts of drugs, being involved with violent paraphernalia, and to top it off, it has the added sounds of police sirens blaring in the background.
The pink sheep dog, who is driving, then steps out of the vehicle and protects its' humanoid puppets. So, why all the different miniature sets? According to Signey Sheldon the neural structures critical for constructing spatial relations are also important for vividly remembering the past and constructing imagined scenarios (Sheldon, 2017). Meaning that when trying to successfully train, or teach, visual aids of more than one form is very effective as it toggles the brain to remember to a specific event because of our ability to recall visual aids in a simple manner. In this case Ralph represents the strong pink sheep dog, a protector.
As he becomes aware of the kids, that he was entrusted with, becoming terrified, he then breaks the tension by stating oh boy this looks like a problem when you are so called a chaperone, or you have people under your charge, the responsibility lies to you to make sure that nothing goes wrong, that you're protecting them, and things work out quite well and you have to. The Chaperone (Fraser, 2013). This is the part of the film that gets interesting.
As Ralph, whom was speaking, begins to put his thoughts and words into play, he decides to take charge and take control of the situation. He tries to reason with the biker gang, but it is to no avail. From the three men's clothing, early 70's style, the bikers knew they were push overs. They were wrong, as they got a rude awakening. The three adults protecting these children were afraid of the biker gang except for Ralph, he ordered lock the doors, let's stop this. Ralph was ready to protect. This engaged a scenery of epic proportion.
The fight scene. Although Stefan was terrified of the biker gang, he was the first to throw a stool to Ralph and like a super hero, Ralph catches it in midair. He begins to swing from left and right, peter turns off the light, and both Ralph and Stephan start throwing heavy metal foldable chairs into the air hitting several bikers. This didn't last so long as the bikers retaliated and started throwing them back, accidently hitting a kid which caused Peter to turn on the lights. This aggravated Ralph, causing him, just him, to move into them. He then asked You wanna fight?. How iconic is that question. He then finds the leader and knocks him out; causing a flurry of exploding pi?±ata heads “ another miniature set.
This particular miniature set undoubtedly changes the whole setting. As the fights progress, we are met with heavier rock music and explosions of course. This entices the audience to feel justice in the world. Ralph then starts to throw punches, karate moves, and when any of the bikers tried to get up he would knock them right back down.
As we imagine this scene, one cannot help but think violence is bad, Daniel Sweeney says The law of self-defense is a law of necessity; the right of self-defense arises only when the necessity begins, and equally ends with the necessity; and never must the necessity be greater than when the force employed defensively is deadly. (Sweeney, 2016). Meaning that self-defense is the only acceptable time to fight, no matter the cost, self-defense is a right. We must embrace the right but not abuse of it.
Very humbly, Ralph admits in this story that it was not his punches or moves that kept the bikers down as most were under the influence of drugs, lowering their reflexes. Stefan and peter then stepped in and took care of one biker each. On the other hand, Ralph, the non-human teacher took care of the rest of these bikers with his fists. The story ends with the police arriving, and the narrators explaining that this specific fight lasted for about ten minutes to its audience.
When the police question the incidents that took place, all they replied was these boys came in, this is what happened. This was acceptable back in those days, even the parents of the youngsters agreed with these acts of heroism. Stephan then sidetracks to an animated representation of survival of the fittest using an ostrich and a baboon, where the baboon tries to steal an ostrich egg but fails.
Stephan explains if you are weak, people pick on you, they take advantage and if you don't respond to what they do, they'll just continually badge you and pick on you, you have to frighten them, and you have to attack first. The idea isn't to attack first, because most of these guys don't know how to fight, that's the reason why there's strength in numbers, that's the reason why they travel in gangs, because single one or two of them out and they're pussies. It's as simple as that. Absolutely incredible.
This short film is action packed, good vs. evil and is very wholesome up until the very end. With a non-scripted first-person narrated voice, we are walked through the entire events that occurred. The hand drawn animation, the miniature sets of puppets, and animated animation truly bring this short film to life. With all the fun that is represented, it seems as if the target audience was not just one group of people, but everyone. The entire vibe of this film is not to be aggressive, although explosions and rock music are fun, truly the message is perceived as our right to stand up and defend ourselves, no matter the size of the other person. we must be brave.
Works Cited
- Munden, Fraser The Chaperone 2013. Short film. Published October 30, 2013. https://www.shortoftheweek.com. Accessed September 5,2018.
- Sheldon, Signey, et al. Individual Differences in Visual Imagery Determine How Event Information Is Remembered. Memory (Hove, England), vol.25, no. 3, Mar. 2017, pp. 360-369. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1080/09658211.2016.1178777. Accessed September 15,2018.
- SWEENEY, DANIEL. Standing up to Stand Your Ground Laws: How the Modern Nra-Inspired Self Defense Statutes Destroy the Principle of Necessity, disrupt the Criminal Justice System, and Increase Overall Violence. Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 64, no.3, July 2016, pp. 714-746. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=116641169&site=eds-live&authtype=ip,uid&CustID=s6735259. Accessed September 15,2018.
Cite this page
Analysis of The Film. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Bordwell Thompson and Smith Story
Abstract
These scenes convey the viewers; vision has to be shared to find that person with similar vision to fulfill the dream. As Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith write, the filmmaker use rhythm in sound and image often to coordinate the visible movement and sound closely (282). When Carl and Ellie get married, montages of the scene only 5 to 10 second in length are strung together to show their life together in fast-forward. The music is bright and cheerful with a lively tempo when they get married, but in the end, when Ellie dies, the music slows down significantly, even going down an octave from the usual. The music holds this scene together because it tells us nothing new is happening and we are still watching the couple grow up together. Without the music, the viewer would take a few seconds to think about and analyze the new scene and what it was about.
Whereas music helps to interpret the visual movement, building the romantic relationship effectively and understandable to the viewers. The mise-en-scene takes place when the Ellie have miscarriage and music get slowed down. The director uses backlighting in this scene to project the picture in the background and connect with Ellie miscarriage situation. Direction of light shows the picture of a baby in the womb that emphasizes the situation of Ellie miscarriage, which informs the viewers they are not going to have a baby. These situations convey the audience; in life, there will be a difficult situation and sad moment to go through.
As Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith write, "the sound from the previous scene tells the viewers in the image is already presenting the next scene (298). In Up, the sound begins to slow down in Ellie miscarriage scene; sound informs the viewer in the image that they are disappointed and sad for miscarriage. The music also informs the audience that they will spend sad and emotional situation until their new hope grows. The filmmaker uses adventure books to remind the Ellie, their dream, place their house beside the paradise fall. In the scene, when Carl shows adventure book to Ellie, the sound goes up, and the image shift from sad to excite moment.
The sound helps to create visual moment excite and hopeful, shifting the tragedy of miscarriage to a happy moment. Carl understands how Ellie quite moment and handle her through a difficult situation and bring her in excitement. This scene shows their love for each other and how strong relationship they have. This sound design helps to understand the visual image of emotional, sad and excite moment. These scenes convey the audience that difficult situation can make use emotional and sad, but also bring hope and remind us of the dream that we have to fulfill. Love also helps each other to maintain the situation and empower one another to stay focused on dreams. As Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith write, the temporal editing control the time of the action presented in repeating elements and contribute the manipulation of story time (226).
In Up, Ellie makes the Carl tie continuously. This scene builds temporal editing when Ellie make Carl ties, each time she makes Carl ties the time is passing continuously. The duration of this scene is temporary and shifts the visual movement of young married life to elderly portion. This scene conveys the viewer even the time went by, the relationship between husband and wife will remain romantic. In Up, the director uses the technique of mise-en-scene in Ellie funeral scene. In this scene, sad music and color scheme and church is dark and Carl is sad and grieving. This scene interprets the feeling of isolation moment from the wife. As Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith write, filmmakers use genre iconography from a symbolic image to carry meaning from scene to scene (330).
The director uses casket, balloons, and darkness in Ellie funeral to shows all the romantic relationship they had spent has vanished and life will be full of darkness and isolate. Furthermore, the director use iconography in-house takes off a scene. In this scene, we see the happy moment, bright, vivid colors and hear the exciting music. Balloons, blue sky, wallpaper of the house reminds us the Carl and Ellie romantic relationship and adventures dream. The scene informs the viewers that Carl is free and excites to have gain adventures experience. It makes us feel that he is now going to fulfill his promise that he gave to Ellie, to park their house beside the paradise fall.
As Bordwell, Thomson, and Smith write, the fidelity refers tan o the extent which the sound is faithful to the source as we conceive it (284). In Up, the fidelity is used when the house with balloons is caught in a huge thunderstorm; ta he music is loud, frightening and fast, with a panic-inducing feel to it. The film shows the thunderstorm with the fast wind, and we hear the thundering and fast windstorm noise, that sound is faithful to its source; the sound maintains fidelity. In a take-off a scene, the fidelity is used when Carl takes off his house with many balloons.
Each sound effect in the scene shows us what happens in the visual and sound is maintaining its fidelity. As Bordwell, Thomson, and Smith write, rhythmic audio stimuli can provoke visual attention (281). In the scene, when the Carl house trap in thundering and windstorm, the rapid change of tempos, key, and rhythm add to feel that everything is happening fast and draw us to the attention to the visual. The director uses Sound design in the film to visualize an image, and it helps to understand the situation in particular. In up, Carl runs as fast as he can through the jungle towing Russell along and he is eager to get rid of the two disruptive creatures. In this scene, the music is energetic and fast along the image also moving fast to catch up the fast music.
These scenes interpret Carl is hurried and did not want to get distractive by two creatures to reach his destination, Paradise fall. The continuity editing also takes place in this scene, when they are running away from two creatures, Kevin and Dug. The music and image are flowing in rhythm when they are running away from the two creatures.
Cite this page
Bordwell Thompson and Smith Story. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Film Analysis Meet the Parents
Abstract
The film I chose to analyze is Meet the Parents. It is about a young couple that resides in the city of Chicago, one is a male nurse (Greg) and his partner, a female (Pam) works as a preschool teacher. Greg is ready to propose to Pam after dating for two years and sets up a whole scene with Pam's preschool kids but after hearing from Pam that her sister (Debby) is about to marry a doctor (Bob) he decides not to propose at the moment. Greg and Pam fly out to visit Pam's parents for Debby's wedding.
Soon after Greg and Pam reach their destination and having a small get together with Pam's parents (Jack and Dina) where they are exchanging gifts and getting to know each other, Greg's work field comes up. Pam, very proud of her boyfriend, mentions how Greg has been transferred to triage, and Dina (Pam's mom) asks Greg directly with a curious facial expression if triage is better than nursing. Pam replies almost instantly with a sort of dissatisfaction in her face stating that triage, is a unit of the E.R. where all the top nurses work, Dina looks at him with discontent and Jack, cuts the awkward silence and comments about how there are not too many males nurses in Greg's working field and that finalizes the conversation.
Later in the film, when all characters have emerged, there is a scene where everyone (Pam's relatives and significant others) is having breakfast and almost everyone makes fun of Greg's medicine field, looking at him down for being a nurse and truly not understand the reason of why Greg decided to stay in the nursing field and not wanting to pursue the M.D. There is even a line that follows after that where Jack, mentions to Debby's fianc© (Bob) of having Greg as one his ushers at his wedding and Bob being hesitant about what wanting to respond, clearly hiding his truly feelings about not wanting Greg to serve as his usher possibly to his unfit nursing role. Throughout the whole film, all male characters and some female included, act and conform to a very common but yet biased relating to the area of gender, which is gender roles in the workplace.
When we think about who is best suited for a particular position or job, we take into consideration people's education level, background, and skills but we also have an idea about who should fill or adapt to a certain position. When entering man dominated fields, women can rise up to positions of leadership and power to a certain extent but certainly not to the highest level, in spite of having the same qualifications as man, there seems to be an artificial level that blocks them reaching that kind of power.
If women reach these high levels, they are still not going to be obtaining the same benefits of power and wages that come with these high-level positions. When women do enter female-dominated positions, sometimes they are subject to tokenization, they are either seen as the representative of all of those people that represent whether that is women or women of color. However, the opposite phenomenon occurs when male enter female-dominated professions, the idea that man is more suitable for positions of power and leadership, and that they would not want to start as a teacher, they must want to be a position of power to be promoted faster (Missari 2017).
An example of a female dominated profession in the United States is nursing, this was one of those profession that are ninety percent and above women, with only nine percent of registered nurses as man, maybe it is a connection between nursing and caring, and nurturing work that is associated with femininity and this could be because man, maybe want to become doctors (male-dominated profession) if they want to be in the field of medicine at all therefore in that way, they would not have to stay home and have a family.
When it comes to having equality in these two fields, the best approach would be to put a stop to stereotyping both genders as a society as a whole hence, man could still see themselves as being in the nursing field without thinking of them as being feminine but still can be caring and nurturing and the same goes for women, they have this idea that they are suited to become doctors because women are not as brave as males are and therefore, cannot handle things that doctors do. Personally, I think that it would be easier to integrate women in the idea of wanting to become doctors because it is only a matter of making them believe that they have the same capacity and ability to achieve the same things that man can.
Cite this page
Film Analysis Meet the Parents. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
What’s Cooking Film Analysis
Abstract
The film, What's Cooking , was created and directed by Gurinder Chadha, and released in year 2000. In the movie, we see the day in the life of four culturally different families on Thanksgiving day. The families depicted in the film include a hispanic family, a jewish family, an african american family, as well as an asian, specifically from vietnam. Due to their diverse backgrounds the families experience a different form of Thanksgiving from the food, their beliefs, and relationships.
For our first concept we will be discussing homosexuality (Chapter 6, pages 155-165), specifically the accpetance of homosexualoty within the jewish community. Homosexuality is defined as, of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. based on the Merriam-Webster definition of homozexuality. In the movie, we see two girls meeting each other at the airport, Rachel and Carla. It's not obvious that the two are in a relationship at the beginning since Rachel quotes, I'm not exactly in a hurry, sis. after a woman at the airport assumes the two women are sisters.
As the movie progresses, you begin to see the relationship between the women grow. In one scene the women push the beds together so the two can sleep together and cuddle during the night. You can also see the struggle between the characters as they debate whether or not to be open about their relationship and if family Rachel's family will accept them for who they are. Since Rachel's family follows the jewish religion they struggle with the fact that their daughter is in a relationship with another woman. You can tell the parents are uncomfortable because they question where they went wrong as parents and even go so far to provide the girls with seperate beds in Rachel's room.
In our second concept we will be discussing respect in Asian culture (Chapters 2 & 5, pages 50-52, 141-143). In most of asian culture respect is highly valued, especially respect towards older members within your family. The movie shows us a family that has moved to the United States from vietnam. The family consists of the mother (Trinh) and father (Duc), along with their four children Jimmy, Jenny, Gary, and Joey. The family also consists of extended members such as Duc's mother and father.
Jimmy is the oldest child of the family and is currently away at college. Jimmy is highly respected by both his parents and siblings as he fulfills his role of going off to college to obtain a better education. Jimmy is praised by his mother whereas Jenny and Gary are not as praised.Tinah feels as though her children are becoming too Americanized as her children begin to act inappropriately in her eyes with Gary bringing home a gun and Jenny having a condom in her backpack. She feels some sort of disappointment and looks towards Jimmy for some sort of advice because he was the son that always did the right thing and respected his older members.
The final concept being discussed is traditional gender roles in the hispanic community (Chapter 2 & 5, pages 42-50, 136-138). Early traditional gender roles in the United States consisted of separate spheres, a man's sphere where he worked outside of the home to provide for the family and a woman's sphere where she mainly stayed with in the home to clean the house and care for the children. While the hispanic family in the movie didn't stick strictly to these specific roles, you can see where the family followed similar rules during the modern times. For example, on Thanksgiving day most of the women in Lizzy's family were in the kitchen preparing the meal while most of the men in her family were in the living room watching some sort of sports on tv. The family even teased Jimmy at bit while he was in the kitchen helping the family to prepare dinner. The women of the family also catered to Jimmy a bit. When he first arrived Lizzy had asked her family to get supplies for Jimmy so he could go and wash up before dinner
Social Institution is defined as a set of roles and rules that define a social unit of importance to society. based on the Public and Private Families: An Introduction by Cherlin (Chapter 1 page 29). A social institution provides families with their roles with in a certain institution along with the rules that help guide us to fulfilling those roles.
The social institution we'll look further into is Education. Education is an important institution as it helps humans obtain knowledge in order for us to progress further. It teaches us both basic skill and extended skills for us to function a society. One example of a role in this institution is the Board of Education. The Board of Education is what makes our schools function. They take the laws from their state and determine the best plan of action for teaching the future generations. Using the feedback from each year, the board can determine what plans work for our students and what rules failed. Another role in the education institution are the teachers.
Teachers are the individuals that take the important information we need and communicate that information with the students, the individuals who learn the information. They are responsible for making sure each student has the knowledge to progress further into their education as well as their life. In the movie, we can see that the vietnamese family values education and it is seen as a role that needs to be fulfill. The family is obviously very proud that Jimmy is a student away at college. However, the family is disappointed to know that Jimmy would not be returning home for Thanksgiving due to having too much work to complete for his finals. While his mother, Trinh, misses Jimmy and checks on him several times during Thanksgiving she respects the fact that his education comes first as it is his role to do well in school as a student.
Through watching the film, What's cooking, I have gained more understanding of cultures that are different from my own through a common holiday most of us practice in the United States of America. It has opened my eyes that while I may celebrate Thanksgiving through what we call the more traditional way based on traditional meals, such as the idea of turkey, mashed potatoes, and dressing, and settings, that the family down the street from me may experience the holiday in a a completely different manner.
With that understanding in mind, I can apply it to all aspects of life knowing that how I go about my day is completely different from the individuals next to me or the individual on the other side of the world. I now understand the struggle of the acceptance of homosexuality in the Jewish community portrayed by Rachel and Carla's relationship. I gained more knowledge on why the respect for elders in asian culture is very important and the effects that go along with obeying that rule. I think I would like to expand my understanding of respect in Asian culture and to know more about why that doesn't apply as much in most western countries. Like what keeps most western cultures from feeling the need to not follow such a rule.
Also, I understand how traditional family roles this affect families till this day. Finally, I learned more about the importance of education as a social institution as its role is to teach us the skills to be a functioning society.
References
- Homosexual.Merriam-Webster,Merriam-Webster,www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual.
- Chadha, Gurinder, director. What's Cooking? Redbus Film Distribution, BeCause Entertainment Group/Trimark Pictures, 2000.
- Cherlin, A. J., (2017). Public and private families: An introduction (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Cite this page
What's Cooking Film Analysis. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Analysis of the Film Gran Torino by Clint Eastwood
The film, Gran Torino, by Clint Eastwood, follows the life of a Korean war veteran and his relationship with his Hmong neighbors as they battle to overcome the trials that they are faced with. The character that struggles the most in the film with fighting the social norms is Thao. Thao is constantly being pushed by the influences in his life to be their idea of a man. There are two cultures that have an active influence on Thao in the film which are Hmong and American. Within these cultures, Thao has individuals who are attempting to subject him to their notions of masculinity, which are Walt, his family, and the Hmong gang.
Thao's experience with overcoming and sometimes conforming to these influences are put in an interesting perspective when analyzed through a the lens of panopticism. In Panopticism by Michel Foucalt, Foucalt believes that society works to mentally control people by creating institutions that act like the panopticon. These institutions, such as church, school, or hospitals, play a major role in subject formation in that they give you signals on what type of behavior and beliefs are acceptable in the society. These institutions are the government's way of watching and controlling you.
We are essentially powerless to escape the social norms our society chooses to adopt. One major institution that plays a huge role in Thao's life is his family. A family is a socially constructed institution in that it teaches and prepares you for the behavior that is expected in society. Thao's family is described by his sister, Sue, as traditional Hmong and is shown in a scene where Walt comes over for a Bar-B-Que and Sue gives him a rundown of Hmong cultural behavior. Thao is shown in this scene doing housework and chastised by his family for doing women's work and mocked for his lack of a girlfriend or job. T
his shows that in Hmong culture these are the attributes that make one masculine. Thao's family is working as the prison guards of the panopticon in this scene by letting him know that they are watching him and seeing that he is not doing what is expected of him and Thao is the prisoner because he is subjected to their watch and treatment. Like the Panopticon, Thao is aware that there is a higher authority watching him and wanting him to act in a specific way but he is unable to.
In Panopticism a major idea is that the watchguard is a fear tactic used to scare the prisoners into behaving although they're might not be guards present in the tower, there is also the possibility that there is . This is similar to Thao's encounter with his family in that they are not using actual force to get him to behave and do the things they want him to do but instead using tactics that emotionally harm him and maybe scare him into conforming to their ideals. An interesting thing about Thao's family dynamic is that there seems to be a lack of a male authority figure in their household, the audience never sees Thao's dad or even grandfather. It is possible that this lack of a strong male figure in the household creates an immense amount of pressure on Thao to fill the void where his father should've been present.
Perhaps because they lack a man they overcompensate and push Thao to be something that he is incapable of being at the moment. This is one of the main controversies with Panopticism, does it seek to reform the person in the prison or just to keep them in their forever controlling them with no intentions of letting them out? Does Thao's family seek to just emotionally harm him while keeping him with them forever or do they actually want to see him become their vision of a man? In addition to his family subjecting him to their notions of masculinity, Thao is also pushed by Walt. Thao and Walt's relationship is extremely unique because initially Walt has no respect for Thao as a person and thinks he is no good, but eventually he ends up taking Thao under his wing and being a mentor or role model for him.
Walt is a retired auto worker and war veteran, and despite his old age he acts as the watcher in the neighborhood. Panopticism is a large system with many sublevels so Walt himself is not the ultimate watcher, there are others watching him to ensure that the neighborhood is not complete chaos or even maybe to ensure that the neighborhood stays in the shape that it is. The government does not always care about the troubles that plague urban youth so this shows that Panopticism in our society is a structure built for the higher authority to watch the people and keep them in their place, causing trouble but not too much that it will affect them.
Walt is simultaneously subjecting Thao to the notions of masculinity that he himself has been subjected to. Walt is very patriotic, which is a characteristic that was installed in many Americans in the 1950s, along with his strong work ethic, intolerance for laziness, and distrust of foreigners. The morals and behavioral norms that Walt displays are the result of the society. Walt's patriotism was most likely installed into him in school where they make children say the pledge every morning or by the media with action toys and comic books. Walt's pride in his participation in the Korean War also shows that American society has created this ideal that a true man is one that will serve his country and be willing to sacrifice himself that Walt feeds into, describing the events that happened to him during the war whenever he wants to prove his manliness.
Walt's strong work ethic also may have come from behaviors associated with manliness in society. The typical household in Walt's era consisted of a wife who tended to all the housework and a husband who worked and provided the income for the family. All of these qualities that Walt has are reflected in his advice that he gives to Thao telling him that a real man has a car, woman, or job. There are many instances where Walt calls Thao gender slurs such as pussy for doing behavior that is not considered masculine, like gardening. This shows the similarity in Hmong and American culture in their notions of masculinity and the activities they view as feminine. This also shows that Panopticism can be applied in many different sects of life and many cultures.
Taking on his role as a mentor, Walt helps Thao land a contracting job and a date with a girl he likes. In this way, Walt is going beyond the role of a watcher and actually physically forcing Thao to conform to the actions of masculinity. In addition to the actions, Walt attempts to teach him the behaviors associated with being a man in a scene where Thao and Walt go to the barbershop. In this scene Walt shows Thao how men talk to each other, exchanging insults with the barber and instructing Thao to do the same. Walt advises Thao to talk about his girlfriend, car, or job when conversing with another man. This shows us that human behavior is not biologically determined but learned through society and cultural expectations.
People are not inherently masculine or feminine, they are taught by society that these are the gender roles and this is what you should conform to if you wish to be normal, this is what Panopticism aims to do to the subjects. In the speech Aint I A Woman? by Sojourner Truth, she exemplifies similar struggles with battling gender roles. In the speech, Truth speaks on the common behaviors and characteristics that are considered feminine saying, women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Truth expels these notions by saying Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman?
These lines challenge society's ideals and are an exclamation saying that she does not have to conform to their gender roles. Truth repeats multiple times in the speech And ain't I a woman? deconstructing the normal that society has created for women and refusing to be a prisoner to their mentality. Sojourner Truth was a slave so she was in literal imprisonment; Truth knew firsthand the reality of being a subject and despite this she rose to speak out to the people who have oppressed her.
Thao faces similar challenges in standing up to the people who are oppressing him in the film, which are his cousin and the Hmong gang he is a part of. Thao's cousin, Spider, is the leader of a Hmong gang in their neighborhood which try to get Thao to join them. They attempt to initiate Thao into his gang by making him steal Walt's Gran Torino. The gangs ideas of masculinity include doing illegal activities that put your life in danger. Spider is peculiarly hard bent on getting Thao to join him although he has shown that he is not cut out or qualified to do gang activities. There is a struggle for dominance within Spider that is clearly shown through his persistence with harassing Thao. Spider is seeking to validate his own masculinity by subjecting Thao to be under his rule.
This relates to Panopticism in that Spider and his gang are one of the lower levels of guards and believe they have power and influence over people through violence when in fact they themselves are merely just subjects of the system. They believe that they are separate from the influence of the law and government but are truly prisoners in the system, doing what the government expects of them. Spider is in fact losing the notion of masculinity he has by actively participating in the Panopticism system, whether it is unconsciously.
We have moral systems, culture, behavioral norms, and socially accepted ways of thinking that control us. No matter where we go or what we do, these cultural patterns follow us. We cannot escape them. Thao was subjected to societies ideas of masculinity and his struggle to conform to these ideals was shown throughout the film. We as people are not inherently anything, our subjectivity is created for us by society and panopticism works as a way to ensure that we are behaving as such.
Cite this page
Analysis of The Film Gran Torino by Clint Eastwood. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
An Analysis of the Effects of Framing
Lighting Due to the nature of colorless visual works, it can be said that the importance of lighting and shadows are amplified many times over in the case of Casablanca. Since the audience does not receive the luxury and sensation of numerous hues, an alternative is thus required on the part of the filmmakers. And with that, an analysis of filmic lighting comes into play. Immediately following the opening credits, the screen is engulfed by a planet Earth nearly as black as charcoal.
Paired with the music in this initial image, the light or lack thereof helps to establish the mood of the entire film. It can be said that this portrayal foreshadows the coming chaos and solemnity of later scenes such as when Ilsa abruptly abandons Rick upon receiving news of her husband being alive, or in more general terms, the majority of the encounters between Ilsa and Rick as they do not even end up together at the very end. As for a specific analysis tied to the nature of black and white films, the scene in which Sam gives Ilsa's letter to Rick is one that cannot easily be forgotten.
With the rain that day, the ink on the paper was already smudged by the time Rick read the message. Despite the obvious indication that the writing and smudges were both in and of ink, the nature of colorless shots allows for the imaginations of the audience to take them away. The color of blood in a black and white film is so dark that it might as well be the color of tar or ink. Thus, smudges of blood on the paper could indicate the physical pain on both sides for the separation. Perhaps the best example of emotional appeal to an audience on the part of Casablanca is the singing of the patriotic French anthem Marseillaise as the mother of film critic J. Hoberman witnessed people standing up during that scene to sing along in a public theater. Thus, this sort of patriotic involvement on the part of this film really goes a long way in appeal to audiences.
However, with specific ties to lighting, there is appreciation to include. During a later visit to Rick's bar, Ilsa's husband, Victor Laszlo spontaneously gets the band to start playing a French anthem by the name of Marseillaise. What is interesting to note here though is not anything that Laszlo did, but how he was physically portrayed during the song. Although he wasn't in the center of the frame, he was nonetheless the first one the audience would notice because of the lighting shining on him. Moreover, this light was not anything like a single spotlight as it did not shine from above, but it lit up Laszlo's entire figure and only his figure to make him stand out amongst the singing crowd as a major character.
The theme of isolation pops up again in this context, but unlike most instances, this time it is with a positive connotation. As a dynamic character, Ilsa Petrovich is one for which the filmic technique of lighting plays a great role. Most of the shots were taken from her left side with a catch of the light, so that her eyes could look like they were shining. For example, following the instance where she first enters the bar, Ilsa practically begs Sam, the pianist and one of Rick's closest friends, to play a song she and Rick used to love: As Time Goes By'. As she pleads with him after he refuses the initial request, one can make out small but vividly apparent balls of light in her eyes.
If one thinks about shining' eyes perhaps one may think of emotions such as excitement or sincerity, and there is nothing incorrect in that connection. However, for this specific instance and others similar to it throughout the film, Ilsa's eyes could be seen as shining' with tears - just not actual tears. It is possible that the filmmakers intended to subtly incorporate this idea to exhibit the filmic theme of lost love. Ilsa lost a loved one through her action of leaving Rick behind in Paris.
Despite her desire and eventual decision to reunite with her husband, or in other words her first love, she indeed loved Rick at one point in time, and there is pain associated with the loss of any loved one regardless of whether the love is that of the past or present. The gown that Ilsa wears in a shot within Rick's flashback can be noted in close comparison to the portrayal of her eyes: shiny with the correct use of lighting in the scene. Interestingly enough, since this is an instance found in a flashback from when Rick and Ilsa were still together, it could in no way directly result from the point where she deserted him, but it could be of no doubt an occasion of foreshadowing the feelings resulting from lost love the both of them were about to experience.
In contrast to the light with which Ilsa was portrayed, spots of shade and darkness added in connections to several other characters, major and minor, were indicative of isolation, another theme inherent in Casablanca. The clearest example of this is perhaps the instance in which Rick sits down with a drink after closing hours, without the ability to stop thinking about his encounter with Ilsa after such a long time. Shortly after this shot, flashbacks follow suit.
There is a hazy transition to and from the flashback that emphasizes the mindset with which Rick recalls his past with Ilsa: drunkenness paired with a sense of longing. More importantly, the flashback as a whole is the primary component in the overall plot that aids the audience in understanding the entire backstory of why Rick reacted the way he did at the sight of Ilsa in his bar.
Moreover, the theme of betrayal is illustrated quite vividly in those memories initially of bliss but then of pain, unexpected and raw. The wide variety of different lighting equipment, shadows and shades used in the film were all of a classic nature in consideration of black and white films. Moreover, the way of applying the background surroundings as a frame of the various scenes made the film seem more professional, which leads the analysis to the next topic of discussion: framing.
Cite this page
An Analysis of the Effects of Framing. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Weird Wacky Film Analysis and Evaluation
The short documentary Ryan is an animated documentary about the life of a Canadian filmmaker named Ryan Larkin. Larkin is renowned animation film maker who, after hitting a creative block, turned to cocaine and alcohol. The creation of the film began back in 2001 by Chris Landreth after he met Ryan at the Ottawa International Animation Festival. Soon after meeting, Chris was deeply impacted after seeing Ryan's current condition, relating it back to that of his mothers, and became inspired to make a film about his life. Ryan is essentially a mashup of interviews that are talking about and giving background information into what Ryan's life used to be like along with what it's like now.
Chris Landreth is an american animator, working out of Canada, and is well known for his use of psychorealism, which adds a surrealist style to his work. Instead of just saying the thoughts or emotions, Landreth portrays it by disfiguring the characters, making them metaphors for their feelings. He has created a few different films, most have either won awards or have been nominated for different awards. For example, one of his first ever films, The End, was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film in 1996. Although he has plenty of well known films under his belt, he is best known for his work on his multiple award winning film, Ryan.
While creating Ryan, Landreth did not use a storyboard base line like what is typically used in the creation of this type of documentary. Instead, he collected hours of seemingly random interview footage and sifted through until he found a plausible story line, his downfall from a creative block, resulting in a drug and alcohol addiction. He also accessed some archival footage of a few of his films. It took around 20 hours of interview footage and a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts, to round up a small production team which included a few graduates and a handful of undergraduates from the Animation Arts Centre at Seneca College in Toronto. With the help from the production team, the film was completed within eighteen months.
In the beginning, Landreth starts off the film by explaining some of the psychorealism that he had used. He began by introducing himself in a washed out, water colored bathroom where he talked about some of his disfigurations that showed up when he looked into the mirror. He stated that the sparkly scratches on his face and neck were from when his romantic views were shattered and that the indented smiley face on the side of his head is from when he lost the ability to manage his finances. The disfigurations to Ryan's character are meant to physically show non visible emotions such as fear, pain, and creativity.
Ryan is missing most of his skull and half of his face, his muscles in his arms
After going through a series of interview footage of Ryan, Landreth started the script from when Ryan began talking about one of his inspirations for a film in his earlier career days; ending with how his life was, being an alcoholic and living on the streets of in Montreal, before he passed away on Valentine's Day in 2007. Landreth showed him some archival footage of two of his famous original films, Walking and Street Musique. Along with interviewing Ryan, Landreth also interviewed one of his ex partners, Felicity Fanjoy, and one of his old film producers, Derek Lamb.
After the interview with Derek, Landreth then tried to confront Ryan about his alcohol addiction, saying that he should try to beat it the same way he beat cocaine, which only resulting in an angry outburst. Ryan stating, there is nothing that I enjoy more than a good glass of cold beer, asking, Am I supposed to give it up for like tea or something.
He explains that there is nothing left in it for him and that he doesn't create anymore because he had been ripped off to much in the past. He continued to ramble on about how he had been deprived, and that deprivation is the most devastating thing. He said that he would give up booze if someone were to give him money.
When Ryan lashed out, his head morphed into a spikey blob, shattering the halo that had begun to form and light up on Landreth's head. He began asking himself why he had even brought up the subject in the first place, the screen changed to pictures of his mother, along with a lot of rambling going on to the point where you cannot understand what is being said.
Chris Landreth uses a wide range of different techniques. The major technique that I spotted right off the bat was psychorealism, where the narrator disfigures the characters in some way or another, to show. It is shown throughout the whole entire film but is only briefly introduced to what it is at the very beginning. Also, he used archival footage when he played some of Ryan's original films. Another technique that Landreth used was voice over, because even though he edited the shots, he still needed to explain somethings. The voice over helped about, especially when there was to much noise going on, whether is was the background music or not, and there was important pieces of information that was being given out.
This video intrigued me because I had not seen this type of documentary before, and I have seen a lot of documentaries. At first I thought it was just supposed to be a crazy illusion but after the first one or two shots, I began to see the signs of what it was about. I think it is very neat that Chris Landreth was capable of using psychorealism and that I can look at it and understand what it is supposed to mean.
I also really like this kind of art style, although it takes a couple of times of watching it over and over again to understand the bigger picture, it is an interesting video to sit down to and study the reasons behind why the narrator made it like that. This video, over all, hits pretty close to home with me, seeming how parts of my family are alcoholics and how even though they look normal, they are missing apart of themselves that they will never be able to get back.
Cite this page
Weird Wacky Film Analysis and Evaluation. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
‘Mean Girls’ is a Teenage Film
'Mean Girls' is a teenage film directed by Mark Waters which is the best example in sociology through the socialization, social structure, and group in the movie. It also reflects Marxist theory and the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The movie is about Cady Heron who comes from Africa and was home-schooled by her zoologist parents. Moving to another country and attending a public school is totally strange to her; moreover, it struggles with making new friends while she has no experience in a public school.
First, Marxist theory is the belief that class differentiation is the critical determinant of social, economic, and political inequality which is one major theme in the film. Marx viewed class struggle as the result of the conflict between the groups such as 'The Plastics' and the other groups in which the higher class having all the power and the lower class being taken advantage of. 'The Plastics' group which is considered a popular group and creating trends for everyone follow includes Regina George, Gretchen Weiners and Karen Smith. They are the most popular in school because they are rich and beautiful.
In that group, Regina George is the Queen Bee and the others are followers. As the beginning of the movie, other students describe her as "glorious", "her hair insurance costs thousand dollars", "always wins Queen Spring Fling" ( 'Mean Girls', 8:26-8:46). The other is the lower class who is treated unfairly includes Janis and Damian, Asians and so on. Janis said Regina was a life ruiner and she ruined people's lives; therefore, Janis wants Cady to join in the Plastics to 'crack' them. Janis is a model of the lower class who wants social change because they were run over and humiliated by the rich people, and now they want to revolt and change their lives.
Next, groupthink is a phenomenon especially in 'The Plastics' which describes clearly in the film that members always follow what Regina says and what she says is always true. In the lunchroom, when Gretchen tells Cady their group rules which Cady thinks " girl's world has a lot of rules" ('Mean Girls', 13:40) such as wearing jeans only on Friday or ponytail only once a week; moreover, if anyone breaks a rule, they cannot sit with 'The Plastics' anymore and have to sit with the 'Outcast' which indicates Janis and Damian.
In Regina's bedroom, the girls look at the mirror and complain about something bad or "weird" about themselves; the way these girls look at Cady force her to say something bad about herself either. Although Cady enters 'The Plastics' to crack the girls, groupthink took her to believe she was a 'Plastics'. The girls think they are the best in their high school when the fact is not; in addition, they also experience a lot of pressure toward unity because they just want to get along and a part of the group. They always follow what Regina wants so that they don't hurt their friendship. Many times, the other two are silent while Regina makes decisions for the whole because they don't dare to say the right; this creates an confusion of unity.
'The Plastics' can be considered the alpha group in real life, while the omega group is Janis and Damian who are suspected lesbian and gay. The other groups such as 'Asian Nerds', 'Freshman', 'Unfriendly', 'Rock guys', and so on are in the between alpha and omega; their social status is how they were named as a group such as their race, characteristics, hobbies. Every individual has particular social roles that when are together which enables to be inequality amongst people. In the movie, the majority of students seem to follow 'The Plastics' and want to be popular like them.
Regina considers herself as a leader and she has the right to give the other their social status which she wrote in the Burn Book. When Cady wants to join in Mathematics club, Regina stated that would be "social suicide" in a horrific tone. When everyone is rambling about Regina at the beginning of the movie, which proves that she a high social status at school; while the others are either her victims or highly admire her such as when Ms. Nobury asked if anyone was Regina's victim, everyone raised their hands. That means there are conflicts between the higher status people and the lower ones. In a sociological aspect, the movie about socialization, social interaction, structure and groups.
At the beginning of the film, Cady is out-group because she does not belong to any group and cannot have a room in any table in the lunchroom. That is the experience alienation which she feels separation and being isolated from everyone; therefore, she has to have lunch in the restroom. Janis is also an example of alienation. Her story with Regina caused her to become isolated from everyone else and was though as a lesbian. The inequality in the film is only Regina's group have a high social status while everyone else is below them, which lead to the conflict between 'The Plastics' and the others.
Last but not least, the Iron Law of Oligarchy applies to Regina and her followers. She rules the other student with an iron fist who was described from flawless to a scum-sucking road whore. In every decision she made were driven by hatred and competition with other girls if it affects her relationship with friends, family or her ex-boyfriend Aaron Samuels. Because of being a leader, Regina wants Gretchen and Karen to always follow her rules even they are right or wrong. Gretchen and Karen obsess over Regina with admiration and jealousy; therefore, they always follow her and do whatever she tells them to do. They accept to lower themselves to fit in the group because they don't think they have enough good characteristics as Regina.
In short, many perspectives and theories about sociology are found in Mean Girls. This movie really focuses on social interactions, social roles between friends as well as their teachers and parents. The struggle of peer influence and the consistent want to be popular are also illustrated well in this movie. It is interesting how interactions can sculpt a person in a negative or a positive way. Moreover, it is important to understand these perspectives in order to comprehend how the community works in real life.
Cite this page
'Mean Girls' Is A Teenage Film. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Scenes that Show Masculinity
In this essay i will be analyzing and discussing the themes that were discussed that were used in the movie fight club. The first and main one being is masculinity. Violence was another theme that was used. Third one and most important one is identity and the last one is consumerism. The movie tells a story in which the narrator in the story develops these new personalities as to who he actually wants to be. Fight club was created by him in which a group of men came together to fight. The main character lives life as his alter ego throughout the movie and finally snaps back to reality at the end by shooting his alter ego.
There are many scenes that show masculinity. The movie could automatically falls under the genre of action. Strength is seen as masculine and a lot of the men in the movie seem to be showing their strength in different forms. There are a lot of visual evidence of the men being physical by lifting weights and exercising. Also the club is a place just for men where a lot of femininity is not being shown or even dismissed. Feminine characteristics being compassionate is not seen a lot by Marla. Tyler is emotionless as a way of showing masculinity. The narrator obviously has intimacy or relationship fears because of his parents relationship. The movies makes me want to pay attention to gender roles and shows a lot of toxic masculinity. The movie also send out a lot of negative messages to young boys that are in their teenage years for instance. An example of that would be how tyler is emotionally abusive to marla.
Susan Faludi, while reviewing the movie in her article says, Behind the extremities of his character is the modern male predicament: he's fatherless, trapped in a cubicle in an anonymous corporate job, trying to glean an identity from Ikea brochures, entertainment magazines and self-help gatherings. Jack traverses a barren landscape familiar to many men who must contend with a world stripped of socially useful male roles and saturated with commercial images of masculinity. It's about modern men growing up in an unnatural environment, a place that they were not evolutionarily designed to thrive within. Society suppressing masculinity, the father figure removed from the home while lost and emotionally emasculated boys grow up to do menial jobs that they don't like only so they can buy stuff to fill the void. But the only thing that works is stepping away from the fake world to become real men. Obviously the movie shows the tight connection between being masculine and violence.
When looking at violence, it is clearly seen that all the brutal fights gave a sense of being and purpose to the men in the group. It also successfully shows that men are predisposed to be violent. The violence in the movie helped me understand that the men receive some type of spiritual satisfaction.They use it not only to escape from their problems but also to find themselves. It gives them a sense of belonging.
Tyler uses the the club as a way to connect back together individuals with violence, the same violence that in the surface is absent from the capitalist rationalised system.
We don't fight for our lives anymore, neither we hunt or use violence in our daily activities in any meaningful way. Instead, we pay other people to use violence for us. Like when we go to the supermarket and buy meat from an animal that has already been killed. This is an interesting perspective to look at and was written by Peter in his reviews of the movie. Turning away from violence might makes us think and assume that violence itself is fictional and absent in the world we live in. But indeed violence is still there, is just that it has been obtained from outside and is anonymous.
This reminds me of my brother as a child. He has been very violent. This is something he has learned from watching tv. He watched a lot of action movies and every movement he saw had to be practiced on myself and our cousins. For example, if he saw a movie in which a person jumps from a table and leg kicks someone else on their face, then that will be repeated in the house the next time i disagreed with him over anything. He saw violence as a way to solve his problems and that get him a lot of fulfillment.
As far as identity, one of the identity of the narrator in the movie uses Marla for sexual purposes and completely ignores her emotional needs when the other does not. The fact that there are two different identities coming out of one individual is an interesting theme to look into. At the same time i feel as though the movie is about a selfish man with multiple personalities who subconsciously handle or control other people in a skillful manner and other people to make everyone equal.
At the beginning of the story we see the narrator not being able to find the key to and feeling allowed to cry gives which plays a role in helping him find his identity. Also after the narrator's apartment building is burnt down and he started a new life with tyler, every aspect of his life changes including his identity.
I also see a theme of consumerism. The violence that occurs in the movie whether it is between people or involving objects, it is to avoid the culture of of consumerism that is highly disliked. While the narrator and tyler are having a chat, tylers says, things you own, end up owning you. This shows how the things we consume in life are pretty much all the same even if the way of marketing is different and that consumerism controls our life. They also send out the message that when living life just consuming then we are simply following orders. When one is going to work and making money they feel the need to invest in mass produced stuff to make themselves feel, better about having a job and celebrating the little things.
I am guilty of that myself. I sometimes find myself purchasing things that i don't necessarily need but want. Then i fool myself by telling myself i am treating myself for doing things i should be doing anyway. For instance, spending money on snacks and telling myself i deserve it for getting a good grade on an exam. Even though getting a good grade is a must i somehow make my brain believe that i deserve to get something for little accomplishments.
Peter Davis wrote an article in which he summarizes the movie and clarifies the message the movie is intending to send out. He says It's about solitude, despair and bottled-up rage. It's about how not to feel dead as Y2K approaches. It's about daring to imagine the disenfranchised reducing the world to rubble and starting over. I agree with most of the ideas mentioned specifically the sentence i quoted at the same time there are some part of the outlines i overlooked in the movie. The movie is very broad and it will definitely give different messages to people with different perspectives.
It throws and involves many themes in the picture and explores. But ultimately, it is over all about the self, and the relationship one has with the society they live in. It analyzes how one feel and the view of themselves, and how they truly are and how much control they have over their own life. It shows how society is not in working order, and the extreme search humans go to, to find undiscovered truths. At the same time spreading the idea that consumerism leads to happiness. It leads people to consider the consequences of acting and thinking the way they want to go about their everyday life.
Cite this page
Scenes That Show Masculinity. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Wendy and Lucy is a Story
At the surface level, Wendy and Lucy is a story about a young woman and the struggles she faces as she attempts to find her lost canine companion on limited funds as she travels through a run-down Oregonian town. The setting of the story is confined to only a couple of days, and little to no background information is revealed about the titular character, Wendy, throughout the narrative”but through her struggles, and the way in which they are portrayed, the film paints a careful portrait both of the reality of people living on a budget with absolutely no room for error and of the mundane nature of life in small, forgotten towns.
By Hollywood standards, little happens in the film's 80-minute run: Wendy and Lucy pass through Oregon on their way to Alaska in hopes of a job--with benefits--at a cannery, Wendy's old, depleted car breaks down after miles of wear and tear on the drive from Indiana, Wendy is caught stealing food for Lucy, Wendy goes to jail for shoplifting, Lucy goes missing, and Wendy attempts to find her lost companion with no cash, no cellphone, and no clue where to begin.
Through the intentionally quiet and stark nature of the narrative, co-Screenwriter and director Kelly Reichardt avoids explicitly revealing the film's key themes through narrative and rather employs lighting and contrast, characterization, and cinematography to subtly reveal details of Wendy's story, and the larger tale of poverty at play through a deeply realist lens.
As a whole, the film's overarching themes are achieved both through the consistent and general use of mise en scene and cinematography throughout the duration of the film as well as through deliberate constructions and manipulations of these elements in specific scenes. As Film Art emphasizes, perhaps no component of mise-en-scene is more critical to the essence of a film than, as phrased by Sternberg, the adventure of drama and light. (Film Art, page. 131) Wendy and Lucy follows that rule; through low-contrast, muted blue tones, the film's lighting and color heavily influences how the reader perceives the film's narrative.
The high-key lighting employed in the outdoor daytime scenes”which make up a majority of the film”eliminates contrast and leads to a dull, flattened appearance that highlights Wendy's muted, internalized emotional state”and further, highlights the dull, mundane existence of life in impoverished rural communities across the country. However, the opposite is true when Wendy finds herself in extremely vulnerable or even threatening situations; in a scene near the beginning of the film, Wendy comes across a group of vagrants in the woods after Lucy runs a bit ahead.
The high contrast of the dark night sky and the faces of the men and women lit by firelight produce an entirely different emotional response in the audience than the low-contrast day-time scenes. The same effect is on display when Wendy goes to jail; the stark overhead lighting of the jail produces a harsh contrast, or chiaroscuro, that contributes to a feeling of heightened somberness and unease. With the inclusion of these high contrast scenes with low-key lighting in tense or uncertain situations, the film suggests that while daily life for people on the fringes of society tends to be dull and mundane, feelings of uneasiness and fear are only one unfortunate happenstance away.
This emotional state explored via contrast and color is further emphasized through the acting of Michelle Williams as Wendy. Though concepts of realism in performance have drastically changed over time, Williams' barebones performance falls on the minimalistic end of the stylized spectrum. (Film Art p. 132) There is no added flair to Wendy's words or actions; she simply moves through space quietly. This is not to say that Williams performance is flat; Wendy displays emotional duress both when she is jailed and later when she has an intimidating encounter with a homeless man in the woods while searching for Lucy.
However, Williams' performance of Wendy is extremely small, and this acting style combined with Wendy's characterization leads to a fairly limited scope of depth. Because of her circumstances, the viewer is able to make educated assumptions about Wendy's inner thoughts and feelings, but the film itself does little to explain Wendy's background or inner emotional state. In relation to depth, the film's range is extremely limited; the audience possesses little information about any of the events in the story, and rather only learns of new information as Wendy learns of it onscreen.
For example, one of the few details about Wendy's life that the audience learns is revealed through a telephone conversation with her brother-in-law and estranged sister after she loses Lucy. Wendy calls from a public telephone, and the scene is shot from outside the paneled glass window covering the booth. The reflections of the cars passing by is shown on the glass, and the sounds of the car engines is nearly as loud as Wendy's voice as she speaks.
By placing importance on Wendy's surroundings during the phone call, the film shows that although Wendy's world is falling apart”she has literally lost Lucy, her companion, with no indication that she can be found and has no way of looking for her because of her broken down vehicle”the world in the small town around her persists on as usual.
This phone call scene also serves as a small glimpse into Wendy's reality, though it perhaps raises more questions than it answers; Wendy's brother-in-law presents a friendly voice, but her sister's harsh comments in the background show that she and Wendy do not share a particularly pleasant relationship. Wendy is clearly affected, if not surprised by, her sister's lack of compassion toward her situation.
However, as she states on the call, she wasn't seeking help. She was simply seeking a connection in a time when she desperately needed it, but when she fails to obtain empathy from her sister she neither cries nor gets angry; she simply soldiers on with a quiet determination”because to do otherwise is literally not an option under the circumstances in which she was existing. Wendy's characterization as portrayed in this aforementioned scene is critical to understanding the film's overall theme.
Along with characterization and lighting, the cinematography in Wendy and Lucy contributes to the film's meaning. The film opens with a wide angle long shot of trains, and this type of wide angle long shot can be seen repeatedly throughout the film. An example of this is the scene following the train shot in which Wendy and Lucy are walking through a field; the scene is shot with a wide angle long shot and the camera tracks right along with Wendy and Lucy as the walk forward.
A number of scenes in the film employ this wide angle long shot as Wendy walks through the space on a mission to find Lucy. This choice contributes to a feeling both of repetitiveness and of Wendy's relatively minor importance in her large surroundings; when the film returns to the familiar visual of Wendy walking seemingly across the scene from a far distance, it cues to the audience to recognize that she is once more on a hunt to find Lucy.
Perhaps most notably, the film is generous with the screen time given to seemingly unimportant shots such as the ones mentioned above. By tracking Lucy and Wendy walking for multiple minutes in the aforementioned scene, the film establishes early that it has no intention of following conventional Hollywood standards of shot length and pacing. By granting gratuitous minutes to those slow moments within the narrative, Wendy and Lucy further defines itself as a work of realism and once more emphasizes the monotonous, wearisome routine that Wendy experiences every day.
This phenomenon is best exemplified through the scene in which Wendy searches for Lucy at the pound. The cinematography breaks from continuity editing momentarily to highlight the hopelessness of the situation; rather than show Wendy searching for Lucy in an establishing shot, the film continuously and slowly tracks left from the onset of the scene to reveal each worn out dog in each worn out cage. Like in the scenes discussed above, the scene is gratuitous with the time it spends doing so; the camera tracks down the aisle of the pound for over a minute without any interruption from Wendy's point of view.
Finally, the shot switches to Wendy and tracks her in a close up as she walks and continues to search for Lucy. The shot then switches back to the pound in a parallel tracking shot. Then, the scene cuts to Wendy walking out of the poorly lit, high contrast pound after she fails to find Lucy.
The lighting, contrast, and realistic sounds of the dogs barking and howling contribute to the sense of realism in the scene, but it's ultimately the choice to linger on each shot for a greater-than-normal length of time that contributes most to the film's realistic outlook. Typically, in films the filler is cut out or at least shortened, but in Wendy and Lucy, this filler is heavily emphasized to mirror real life.
Overall, through the meticulous use of lighting and contrast, characterization, and cinematography, Wendy and Lucy tells a story of life for people living on the fringes.
As an audience, we are actually explicitly told very little about Wendy and her circumstances, but these aspects of film form and style work together to demonstrate the reality of her situation: washed out cool blue tones and the use of low contrast in daytime scenes lead to a feeling of muted, dull emotion while extreme high contrast in nighttime and some indoor scenes leads to a feeling of uncertainty and unease that people like Wendy often encounter; Michelle Williams' acting style and Wendy's characterization through costume and actions lead to a sense of a calm, steely resolve born out of a necessity to survive; and long, sweeping wide angle shots accompanied by longer-than-standard filler shots contribute to the film's overall feel of stark realism.
Cite this page
Wendy And Lucy Is A Story. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Control Gun
Jose Rubalcava Mrs. Kowalsky English IV, Period 4 19 October 2018 Gun Control On October 1st, 2017, 59 people were killed and 527 people were injured during a music festival when a 64-year-old man named Stephen Paddock shot at a large crowd of people from his hotel room of the Mandalay Bay hotel, on the 32nd floor. Gun control is a set of laws or that run the way guns work manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, or use of firearms by people. Gun control is an issue because everyday someone gets shot, robbed or even commits suicide and their is usually a gun involved in one of those moments. Guns need more laws and need more background checks in order for someone to get their hands on a firearm weapon because without them people would just buy any weapon and no one will know what that person is capable of doing with the weapon in their possession.
Gun control is an issue because everyone wants to live in a safe environment, and with people walking around with loaded guns no one will ever know what that person can or will do. Better laws for gun control should be enacted to be secure and safe(Newman). New rules should be established because it is unsafe and for some without a gun license illegal to hold a gun. More laws can be able to reduce gun deaths. Gun control is good but the government needs to add more laws, background checks, more safety features, stricter age restrictions, and higher prices. Guns make it easy to kill or injure a person or even many other people.
When owning a gun there is a greater chance of killing an innocent person, family member, friend, or even a neighbor than using it on an intruder or some other sort of evil person. No one knows what a person is capable of doing once they get their hands on a firearm weapon. Some say it is needed to protect themselves from intruders, criminals, or other people, but about 250 Americans actually shoot a bad guy per year. People often use guns to either protect themselves, commit suicide, start a massacre, or use it to rob a store or bank. But often those guns are not registered so in order for people to live in a safe environment the government should put a stop to all these firearm weapons(Newman).
Mass shootings are scary because of the shootings that are occuring, people want more laws and tests to be enacted. People also say that teachers should start carrying guns, which is also a bad idea because just like the shooter no one will ever know when someone might just walk into school or some other place and start firing the weapon leaving people dead or injured. It would still be a bad idea if teachers had guns because they can also start shootings and kill or injure people that are nearby or they can even kill themselves if they are going through some sort of life crisis. Only the military (Army, Marines, Navy, or Air Force) should have guns because they are the people that fight for this country. Firearm is something that they need to take into battle and no one else needs it because they are not the ones fighting in war(Newman).
In order to have a peaceful city, peaceful community, or peaceful state guns need to be taken care of. Guns are a problem in a lot of states. In order to be safe, guns should have more laws to reduce the shooting rate and make it harder for someone to buy a weapon, more safety features because no one will never know when a gun will randomly open fire and kill someone(Younge). The chances of someone getting shot will reduce the death rate an unbelievable amount and the chances of someone being injured by a bullet can also reduce if there are more gun control laws. Gun control should be settled because without laws, a gun can be in anyone's hands and no one will ever know what the person is capable of doing with the weapon. With stricter laws, more lives would be saved.
Their have been serious incidents where guns were unintentionally fired, but still caused a big problem(Younge). Even if someone owned a gun to protect their home, there is a very little chance that an intruder will break into someone's home and the homeowner will use the gun for self defense. People buy weapons for protection which makes them feel safe, but what if a person goes crazy and whips out a gun or if he/she shows it off and accidentally pulls the trigger(Younge). Harder test for a weapons license or increase prices on the weapon should be passed because it would lower the rate of people buying a gun. People are afraid about mass shootings, gun violence and terrorist attacks that result in the death of a lot of people.
Attacks can occur at any given time and location because who knows who has a gun, who is licensed or who is buying a gun. The government wants to arm teachers but that can also be a nightmare just like how people are scared of someone else holding a gun they can also be just another one of those people causing trouble to innocent people. The rate of human deaths can be lowered with more laws on firearm weapons, safety features, license and test when anyone is trying to get a firearm, government should make it harder for people to get a hold on a gun(Elliot).
Everyone wants guns to stay the same people don't want the rules to change and say that law enforcement should not even be worried about those with guns because they are invading their space. This argument has been going on for such long time and only several countries and states have taken action. If more countries added more laws then their death rates would decrease and no one would be worried. Gun control should be in existence because without laws, guns can be in anyone's hands and no one will ever know what that person is capable of doing with the weapon. If stricter gun laws were made, more lives would be saved(Orfalea).
There have been incidents where guns were unintentionally fired. Even if someone owned a gun to protect their home, there is a little and almost rare chance that an intruder will break into someone's home and the homeowner will use the gun for self defense to shoot the intruder. But guns are not always the problem, most of the times it is the people, some say it is not the guns with the problem but the people and that is true(Orfalea). The gun can not pull its own trigger. It is the person holding the gun pulling the trigger that ends up causing the damage.
They also say that if guns are no longer legal or sold that only criminals would know how to get their hands on a weapon and no one would be able to defend themselves because guns are illegal and not selling anymore. There have been workers who were being robbed at a liquor store and the worker immediately pulled out a gun to protect himself and clients. Over 200,000 women have protected themselves from abuse with guns. Some also say that burglaries percentage has decreased because most are scared that they will get their faces blown up, and that criminals are more worried about coming face to face with an armed victim than running from the police.
Even though most people have a good point that guns are not the problem and that they should not be banned, they are forgetting the fact that once you get your hands on a gun you never know what a person's actions will result to. They are forgetting that guns can and will kill someone in a matter of seconds. As soon as you let go of the trigger the bullet coming out of that gun will penetrate through and kill and destroy whatever that bullet hits.
Guns are not the problem it is the people. Most of the people are fighting for more laws to be enacted on gun control because people do not know their limits when it comes to holding the firearm weapon. Death rates can easily be decreased by creating newer and more affective laws on the guns; such as more safety features, more licenses that people should have when it comes to guns, and more test when people are trying to get a firearm license. They should make it harder for someone to maintain. People want gun laws to stay as is. They do not want any changes, and some think that law enforcement should not even be worrying about those with weapons because it is invading their personal space(Elliot).
This controversy has been going on for a long time and only some countries have decided to take actions, if more countries added more laws then their death rates would decrease a good amount. Guns are rarely used in self-defense and legally owned guns are usually stolen by a criminal then they are the ones using the gun for dangerous reasons(Effects), More gun control can lead to fewer suicides, if it is harder to get hands on a gun it can reduce suicide rates. Safety features on a gun would also reduce death rates because those safety features can stop someone from doing something illegal and dangerous, even though they can end up turning off the safety features or doing something else. Maybe they should be a permanent safety feature.
The presence of a gun can likely to become violent. Police say that usually in brawls, romantic triangles, arguments, or drugs and alcohol have resulted in around 1,900, deaths caused by someone carrying a weapon. Countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Countries like Finland and Switzerland have lower homicide rates because people need a license and need to pass inspection on their weapons. On average, seven children are killed by guns in the United States each day, but weekends tend to be worse, even though most people are not going to want guns to be illegal, it should be because guns are extremely dangerous and in the wrong hands, something tragic can happen to an enemy or to someone around them, guns are not toys and they should not be messed with especially in the wrong hands. Some people who do not think guns should be banned have some pretty good facts about gun control, such as the guns not being the problem, but it is the people and it is true(Effects).
It is not the gun who ends up pulling the trigger but it is the person holding the gun pulling the trigger and ends up causing the damage. They also say that if guns are no longer legal or sold that only the criminals would know how to get their hands on a weapon and no one would be able to defend themselves because guns are illegal and not selling anymore. There have been people who use a gun when in danger. There have been people who were being robbed in a liquor store and the worker behind the cash register immediately pulls out a gun for safety. Not everyone is safe women have used guns for all sorts of bad times like when they were almost raped or robbed.
Some say that the percentage will decrease because most are frightened that they will get shot and that enemies are worried about coming head to head with an armed thief then running from the cops. Firearm weapons are the weapon of choice when it comes to self-defense because you can easily protect yourself faster just by pulling the trigger than fighting off the enemy. Most people have good points, guns are not the problem, and they should not be banned, but the fact that once you get your hands on a gun you will never know what that person's results will turn into(Effects). Guns can/will kill someone in an instant, once you let go of the trigger the bullet coming out of that gun will penetrate through almost anything and can kill and destroy whatever that bullet hits.
People think they are cool when holding a weapon and the end results are not pretty most times. People have posted murder videos on social media even mass shootings. Guns are not the problem it is the people, but most of the people are fighting for more laws to be enacted on gun control because people do not know their limits when it comes to holding the firearm weapon. Death rates can easily be decreased with more laws on the guns more safety features more license and test when people are trying to get a firearm license, they should make it harder for someone to get there hands on a gun.
But the other people want guns to stay as is they do not want any changes and some also think that law enforcement should not even be worrying about those with weapons because it is invading their personal space. This controversy has been going on for a long time and only some countries have decided to take actions if more countries added more laws, then there death rates would decrease a good amount.
Works Cited
- Arnold, Carrie. "DIY Gun Control." New Scientist, vol. 234, no. 3124, 06 May 2017, pp. 22-23.
- EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=123337157&s e=ehost-live. Elliott, Philip and Sam Frizell.
- "The New Politics of Gun Control." Time, vol. 188, no. 10/11, 12 Sept.2016,pp.48-51.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph &AN=117821608&site=ehost-live.
- NEWMAN, MELINDA. "Will Country Stick to Its Guns?." Billboard, vol. 129, no. 23, 14 Oct. 2017,pp.13-15.search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=125889532& site=ehost-live.
- Orfalea, Gregory. "Self-Inflicted Carnage." Commonweal, vol. 144, no. 13, 11 Aug. 2017, pp. 17-20.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=124342 14&site=ehost-live.
- "The Effects of Another Year's Delay': The Editors on Gun Control." America, vol. 217,no.12,27 Nov.2017,pp.34-35.
- EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=126464814&site=ehost-live.
- YOUNGE, GARY. "Why the Gun-Control Movement Fails." Nation, vol. 303, no. 19, 07 Nov. 2016,pp.12-15.
- EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN= 118959177&site=ehost-live.
Cite this page
Control Gun. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
The Issue of Gun Control
As we all know, gun control has been a rising issue in the United States since the early 2000s. This is because of the extremely high number of mass shootings that have occurred in America in these recent years. Between 2000 and 2014 there were at least 126 mass shootings. The United States has highest rate of gun violence in the world. There are more guns than people. There is a never-ending controversy on whether gun control laws should be stricter, remain the same, or even be less strict. I interviewed one of my friends to see what his opinion was about the issue. I first asked him his stance. He doesn't think there should be more restrictions on gun control. When I asked him why he felt this way he gave me a couple reasonings.
First, as most people with this belief would say, he said that if someone wanted to kill other people they would find a way regardless of what the law says. Another common saying is guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun violence occurs because some people don't respect the right all Americans have to live. Guns aren't the problem. He gave me an example to back up his claim as well. He said that the United Kingdom has very strict gun control laws, but violent crime rate hasn't decreased, it has actually risen. In fact, their crime rate has doubled since they passed the Firearms amendment that banned hand guns and made overall stricter gun regulations (Gun Facts). People found other ways to kill others, such as stabbing. The United Kingdom's homicide rate has always been lower than the United States due to cultural differences, not differences in the law.
Next, he said there are already a lot of regulations you need to go through in order to purchase a gun. Things that disqualify you from having a gun include being a fugitive, an addict, have been convicted, are mentally ill, have had a restraining order against you, are dishonorably discharged from the military, are not a legal citizen, and more. The laws also vary in different states. I, however, disagree with this. I believe it should definitely be harder to purchase a gun than it is. And I also believe it's too easy to purchase one illegally and something needs to be done about that. You don't even need a background check if you buy a gun online, at a gun show, or through a private sale (Criminal Watch Dog).
Another reason he stated is that guns are how we protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, which I guess is true and the whole reason we have the Second Amendment in the first place. The Second Amendment states, 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. The whole reason of this amendment is because way back when we needed to protect ourselves, so the government wouldn't abuse its power. He said that the first step to taking away people's rights is taking away their right to bear arms. The example he gave is Nazi Germany.
They were being abused by the government and weren't allowed to fight back and also couldn't fight back because they were not allowed to bear arms. This resulted in the death of five to six million Jews, more than three million Soviet prisoners of war, more than two million Soviet civilians, more than one million Polish civilians, more the one million Yugoslav civilians, about 70,000 handicapped civilians, and more than 200,000 gypsies (The Telegraph).
I believe there will forever be an on-going debate about the issue and no matter what solution we come up with people are going to be upset and disagree. I don't think I know enough to have a complete stance on this topic. I think I am neutral. I agree with some things my friend talked about such as people are always going to find a way to kill other people, but I disagree that gun control laws are already strict enough. I think people should have to go through a bigger, more improved process in order to purchase a fire arm. I also think that we shouldn't completely take away the Second Amendment, but maybe revise it.
Cite this page
The Issue of Gun Control. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Gun Violence and Awareness
Gun Control: Gun violence and awareness
On Dec. 15, 1791, ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution eventually known as the Bill of Rights were ratified. The second of them 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. (1)
Gun control is as old as old west (4). Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment were passed at a local level rather than by Congress but later were rooted as a part of institution from the start because this way you can keep your citizen and your country safe. United States is among few countries which have highest citizen to arms ratio.
Fire arms per 100 people: (2)
On average, there are 276 gun homicides a week in America. There are 439 gun suicides. All told, there are on average nearly 1200 incidents involving gun violence, every week in America (6). Thirty people will be shot dead in America today on average, it could be more. If it's less then more will die tomorrow, Or the next day. The United States' gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other countries (3), which is clearly obvious as America has most arms % per 100 people.
Federal law sets the minimum standards for firearm regulation in the United States, but individual states have their own laws, some of which provide further restrictions, others which are more lenient even though there are many laws that prevent sales of certain arms but still each state makes their own set of rules and tries to bend these laws to their liking. Some states, including Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed laws designed to circumvent federal policies but the establishes the supremacy of federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some firearms restrictions, such as bans on concealed weapons and on the possession of certain types of weapons, as well as prohibitions against the sale of guns to certain categories of people (5), which is how it should be because you don't want to sell guns to a mentally disable person or you don't want to sell a full size machine gun or 50 Cal rifle.
We witnessed the destruction caused by weapons during 2 world wars and in the second world war pure destruction was demonstrated when atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have advanced so much in technology and we have come so far but same goes for technology used for weapons. These days you can use few kilograms of Uranium 235 to wipe out entire city in few seconds (Atomic bombings killed 90,000“146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000“80,000 people in Nagasaki). (7)
Racism still exists whenever a black individual is involved. All they're trying to do is protect the one's they love. Since July 2018, at least three black men in the United States have been shot by police in separate incidents while trying, according to witnesses, to stop an active shooting. (8) We might say that we have no racism left in our country but still there are several cases and incidents like these which show that black people are still facing some sort of racism even if they are trying to be nice or saving someone else. There are many issues and proposals but one's that require immediate action are assault rifle ban and when any type of fire arm is being sold they should require background check.
Semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15-style rifle used by Parkland, Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz were prohibited under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban passed by Congress and signed into law by president Bill Clinton. It prohibited the manufacture and sale of the weapons for civilian use and also limited "large-capacity" magazines -- defined as those capable of holding more than 10 rounds. (9). The White House has said following the Florida school shooting that President Donald Trump supports efforts to improve the federal background check system for gun buyers (9). But on the other hand, there is high percentage of people that oppose assault rifle bans and when this situation is developed Democrats and Republicans see this an opportunity to push their agendas.
Democrats are more than twice as supportive of an assault rifle ban than Republicans, with 56 percent of Democrats for a ban and just 25 percent of Republicans in agreement. Similarly, nearly 9 in 10 Democrats are in favor of stricter gun laws as opposed to just 31 percent of Republicans (10). Not only need gun laws but we need to educate one's buying those firearms because even if someone with a clear background buys a gun and don't know how to use it might end up hurting someone or in worst case it can end up killing someone. When she was in sixth grade, Sandra Parks wrote an award-winning essay about gun violence and crime in her hometown, Milwaukee. This week (Nov 21, 2018) two years after she described how we are in a state of chaos, she was fatally shot when someone outside fired a gun at her home and a stray bullet went into her bedroom (11).
This case demonstrates how careless we are when it comes to guns. Once you press the trigger there is nothing you can do to stop that bullet and you don't know what the result is going to be. The 35-year-old middle school science teacher was working on his handgun at his home an hour north of Albany when something incomprehensible happened: A bullet discharged, striking his wife. Ashley Rosen Brock 34, was rushed to a hospital in Saratoga Springs, New York, where she died on Thursday (Nov 18. 2018). Eric Rosen brock was performing maintenance on a legally-owned handgun. The investigation is continuing, but the police said the death appeared to be the result of an accidental discharge. (12)
Mass shootings in 2017 using raw numbers. From January 1 to November 5, there have been 307 shootings in which four or more people were injured or killed. This map shows the number of shooting incidents, per 5 million residents, in each state.
We should focus on two things if we want to stop gun shootings and more accidents like these. First, we need to enforce laws that ensure background and mental health check because depending on one's mental stability they can decide if they want to issue firearms to someone like that. Second, we need to enforce laws that ensure proper training of fire arms before selling them like we have rules before getting our driver's license. We should treat gun laws like driving laws.
Before getting on road you've to pass written and then practical exam to ensure you've enough knowledge about road which can remarkably reduce risks of accidents in future. But why there are no such laws for firearms which is more dangerous than just driving. Because if you get in a road accident you might survive but if someone shoots you there is 5% chance you might survive, but most of shootings end up in death of someone.
Work Cited
1. Gray, Sarah. A Timeline of Gun Control Laws in The U.S. Time, Time, 22 Feb. 2018, time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/.
2. Masters, Jonathan. Gun Control Around the World: A Primer. The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 13 Jan. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-control-policy/423711/.
3. Jowit, Juliette, et al. Four Countries with Gun Control “ and What America Could Learn from Them. The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 14 Mar. 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control.
5. Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West. Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 5 Feb. 2018, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/.
6. U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons. Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons.
4. Dam, Andrew Van. The Surprising Way Gun Violence Is Dividing America. The Washington Post, WP Company, 31 May 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/31/the-surprising-way-gun-violence-is-dividing-america/?utm_term=.640753372bb3.
7. Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Nov. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.
8. Moore, Lela. ''I Am the 'Good Guy with a Gun''': Black Gun Owners Reject Stereotypes, Demand Respect. The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/reader-center/gun-rights-black-people.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGun%2BControl.
9. Gun Control in the US: What Are the Current Issues and Proposals? SBS News, SBS News, 20 Feb. 2018, www.sbs.com.au/news/gun-control-in-the-us-what-are-the-current-issues-and-proposals.
10. Poll: Majority Opposes Assault Rifle Ban. U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-10-19/poll-majority-opposes-assault-rifle-ban.
11. Caron, Christina. Girl, 13, Who Wrote Essay on Gun Violence Is Killed by Stray Bullet. The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/us/sandra-parks-milwaukee-gunfire.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGun%2BControl.
12. Ferr‰-sadurn, Luis. Man Fatally Shoots His Wife While Working on a Handgun. The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/18/nyregion/corinth-ny-shooting-ashley-rosenbrock.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGun%2BControl&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics?®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection.
Cite this page
Gun Violence And Awareness. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Gun Laws have been a Major Issue
Gun laws have been a major issue in society today that creates many different ideas and controversies. The Second Amendment allows citizens the right to keep and bear Arms, so why are people raging about the opposing views of others? Globally, people are debating on whether or not guns should be so easily accessed. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 50 percent of murders occur in 2 percent of the nation's counties.
With the amount of gun related crimes, it is not hard to tell why some individuals oppose persons to effortlessly purchase a firearm. Guns have been involved in many unfortunate events, various have happened in the past and are even still very common today. Earlier this year, on February 14th a man by the name of Nikolas Cruz went into Stoneman Douglas High School and shot 17 persons, forlorn, all individuals have passed away. Stricter gun laws can have a positive effect on society, if stricter gun laws are enforced, society will be much safer. Gun officials should have stricter gun laws because of the increased school shootings, to decrease death rates, and guns are to easily accessible to everyone.
School shootings have been unfortunately growing in numbers over the years. Gun laws should in fact be harsher. Everyday information with gun violence is being seen around the globe. Shooting in public spaces, schools, killing and suicide are only some of various types of gun violence. Shooting and killing any individual is a huge topic in the world and several different comments are offered about this. One of the most significant of them is about weapon (gun) regulation forces. Stingl (2013) states The term gun control as it constitutes applied in the United States relates to any action brought by federal government or by state or localized governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and the use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.
With the number of crimes today, it would only make sense to put these regulations into place in order to ensure the safety of our communities. According to Mark Gius of Quinnipiac University, Assault weapons bans reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54.4 percent. If government officials would enforce stricter gun laws, the reduced percentage of school shooting victims will be even lower. Furthermore, making the age to own a gun higher will not prevent school shootings, neither will background checks, or even bump stock banning.
Reason being is because the individual who aspires to commit the crime will rebel against gun laws anyway, similarly to Nicolas Cruz, who broke an (existing) law and commitment the crime with a firearm he was not even allowed to own because of his age. Supporters for more gun regulations typically only rise immediately after a mass shooting, and the falls when the incident fades from memory. For example, after the shooting in 2012 December, at Sandy Hook Elementary the support for stricter gun laws rose to 58%! In less then a year, that percentage fell to only 49%, despite the sudden peaks and drops, the support for stricter gun regulations has overall risen. Gun control laws will make schools and America safer. Places where guns are not allowed are usually the places where all the shootings happen, for instance, schools, churches, and concerts. These places are usually the most targeted, when their victims are most likely unarmed, and defenseless. Additionally, to both state which have their own laws to regulate firearms and federal gun laws, the right to keep and bear arms is grounded by the second amendment to the U.S Constitution.
Mass shootings in the U.S has started public debate about gun control laws, however. Whenever these mass shootings occur, there is always a call for stronger gun laws. Urban schools are typically where guns are most easily accessible. For example, Chicago has many of the strictest gun laws in the country however still manages to have some of the highest murder rates. Whether guns are legal or not in Chicago, there are still numerous firearms. If there are so many guns in Chicago, why aren't there many school shootings there? When a shooting has occurred, gun control is suddenly a main topic, not surprisingly. People will want to have regulations by increasing background checks, closing loopholes in gun laws and banning weapons.
We have witnessed many gun related murders and as mentioned previously there has been a rise in mass shootings throughout the years, if you were to observe statistics on gun control laws and murder rates, there will be no correlation. Stricter government laws related with less gun related deaths, report finds The section talked about gun regulations laws in states with harsher laws tend to take lower rates of weapon related homicides, as well as suicides (ProCon par 1). Gun control in the U.S is growing into a broad distribution issue and is growing into the question everywhere.
Stricter gun laws should be enforced in order to decrease death rates. According to www.statistics.com, ...the presence of guns in the home increased an individual's risk of death by homicides by 90 percent. Even if you give a good guy a gun, their chance of surviving isn't even risen, it's actually decreased. Additionally, when an individual uses a gun to present self-defense, there is no obvious way to lessen or reduce their chance of being hurt. Similarly, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5 (Do Gun Laws Work? 1). Although some may believe that giving a good person a gun will help to eliminate the chance of gun violence being accumulated, it is best to have harsher gun laws that way it is much harder for criminals to obtain a firearm. Doing background checks and having an age requirement to own a gun will not prevent gun violence at all.
As an example, the age to own a firearm is 21 and Nicolas Cruz was 20 years old when he shot and killed the students in Parkland with an AR-15. An AR-15 is a a weapon Cruz should not even have been able to withhold because of his age. As mentioned in the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The United States goes through many epidemic levels of gun violence, over 30,000 lives are lost yearly[...]for every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded and every year about 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. Gun related deaths are only expanding and only stricter laws will help to lower the rates. Government officials can enforce stricter gun laws by not eliminating the prior regulations, but altering them.
For instance, background checks: instead of the elimination of background checks they can be stricter; for example, officials can change the policy to NO felonies or NO arrests of any kind completely in order to purchase. They can also regulate the denial of any individual if they have not had a gun permit for a minimum of X amount of time. This way, it will be much harder for an individual (of any kind) to purchase a firearm. If government officials use this approach, the number of death rates do to gun violence will significantly decrease. Approximately one-third of gun deaths in America are homicides, and just the access alone to a firearm increases the risk of death by two times according to www.everytownresearch.org.
America fails to realize that allowing more guns is equivalent to allowing more deaths. Black Americans constitute the age of gun killing victims. African Americans exist ten times more likely than white Americans to suffer from the wounds of firearms. Firearms represent the 2nd major cause of death of American kids and adolescents, and the primary major cause of death for colored kids and teens (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1).
Many may argue that government officials should not have stricter gun laws. For example, if you take away guns or make them harder to obtain then it would be much more difficult for a good guy to help the public. Their theory behind not having stricter gun laws is, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. One may say that having stricter gun laws will make it harder for a good guy to own a gun, but many oppose. If government officials have stricter gun laws, why would it be much harder for a good guy to purchase a firearm? If a good guy is really a good guy, then why would it be a hassle to be given background checks etc? An honorable American citizen would not have to worry about having to go through a harder process in order to have a gun because they would easily be granted access because of their clean records, assumingly.
Gun regulations should be much stricter because it would have such a more positive effect on society. As mentioned, with the amount of deaths and mass shootings rising day by day, it is only wise to attempt to enforce stricter gun laws. If gun regulations were not only monitored, but enforced, society would not always have to keep their guard up when it comes to gun safety. Children and even adults themselves would be able to have a peace of mind and would not have to always be thinking about the What if's.. and could be able to simply do their daily jobs at ease.
The Human firearms Act of 1934 was ratified by chairman Franklin D. Roosevelt after high-profile gangland offenses, including this St. Valentines Time Murder at 1929 that left seven dead in Chicago. Even back then weapons were an issue and Presidents and government officials attempted to fix the issue, then why are these events still taking place today? Majority of people support gun control but the real issue is getting it to actually take place. There is a vase difference between having a law and enforcing a law, society today needs to enforce gun laws. The world would be a much safer place if they were enforced.
The web has opened up information choices for people to buy guns. Individual merchants will usually transport within their own government without making a background check. To send to another government (interstate sales), they would have to take the licensed vendor as an intermediary. In those instances, the seller must do the background check, as authorized dealers usually have to do the BC on and offline. Individuals who wish to obtain a firearm are too easily granted. In the USA, there are more than 55,000 authorized weapon traders, according to the 2015 Office of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives account. This includes everything from tiny privately-owned gun stores and sporting goods stores to large chain shops that hold guns, like WalMart. Additionally, there exist more than 8,000 pawn stores that are certified to trade and sell guns, according to this ATF.
Both authorized gun dealers and pawn stores are required by national police to perform background checks when dealing with guns. But not every gun-buyer moves the gun shop way, and in the number of states, firing vendors that are not licensed won't be needed to do the background check, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Almost every time a school shooter commits a crime, they are hit with a mental disability, if shooters are so called mentally disturbed, then how are they able to purchase their weapons? Many of the mass shooters nowadays are surprisingly very young ranging from teens to just early adults. How are these criminals able to own their firearms? Legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. According to www.washingtonpost.com,
A June 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report states that "[a]almost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction." [18] Between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million guns were stolen from US homes during property crimes (including burglary and car theft), a yearly average of 232,400. [19] Ian Ayres, JD, PhD, and John J. Donohue, JD, PhD, Professors of Law at Yale Law School and Stanford Law School respectively, state, "with guns being a product that can be easily carried away and quickly sold at a relatively high fraction of the initial cost, the presence of more guns can actually serve as a stimulus to burglary and theft. Even if the gun owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and would never use it in furtherance of a crime, is it likely that the same can be said for the burglar who steals the gun?" [20]
The Second amendments grants persons to own a firearm, and there are some restrictions out today that can help prevent criminals from obtaining a gun; but what good is it if the criminal can and will just steal a firearm? America needs a good founded and solid system to ensure the safety of its citizens. If citizens are constantly worrying about their safety then what good are the laws set in place to supposably protect them? The principle behind gun regulation is simple”the fewer guns at people's hands, that lesser chances for gun violence and fatalities to happen. This purpose is harm reduction, not the destruction of killing and aggression altogether.
This's never going to happen. Gun power is about making certain guns do not go into those wrong hands. That means things like general background checks, determining the types of guns that world has access to and other common-sense rules. Country is an example of the nation where gun power went. After 35 people died at the Port Arthur Murder, Country banned specific semi automatic and mechanical weapons. Australians are still allowed to have guns if they take the appropriate licenses and have the reason for having these weapons besides physical security.
Cite this page
Gun Laws Have Been A Major Issue. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
San Diego City College
Professor Daveed
Department chair of history and political science at San Diego City College. Views the United States gun rights/reform from both sides. Neutral, more informative view. Not opposed to or for gun control/rights.
Kristin Brown - Co President and Chief Strategy Officer of the Brady Campaign. The Brady campaign aims at preventing gun violence by promoting policies that will keep guns out of the hands of Americans. It was founded by Jim and Sarah Brady in 1974. Jim was Ronald Reagan's press secretary and after he was shot, he and his wife devoted the rest of their lives to do something about gun violence. In 1993 the Brady bill was passed.
It required background checks on people purchasing firearms, along with a five-day waiting period on purchases. Kris Brown started her career on Capitol Hill working for congressman, Jim Moran. She then earned her law degree and worked as a regulatory and litigation lawyer. Now, she oversees strategy and management of the Brady Campaign. Working towards expanding background checks, limiting gun dealers, and educating the public on gun dangers.
Correa 2
Wayne LaPierre - Executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. The NRA is a nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights and advocates for and against gun legislation. After obtaining a master's degree in government from Boston College, LaPierre entered the lobbying industry and in 1977, joined the NRA as a 28-year-old. LaPierre has also served on the boards of directors of the American Association of Political Consultants, American Conservative Union, and Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation. He is also the author of Safe: How to Protect Yourself, Your Family, and Your Home, The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights and The Essential Second Amendment Guide (Garrett).
Introduction
San Diego City College is hosting a panel event. They have invited Kris Brown from the Brady campaign, a gun control activist. Along with Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, and a gun rights activist. We have head of history and political science, professor Daveed as a guest as well as a student named, Gabriel as our mediator. The guests will be giving their thoughts and opinions on where the United States currently stands on gun control/gun rights and what we should be doing differently to prevent gun violence.
Gabriel - [Walks onto stage and sits on the right of Wayne LaPierre, Professor Daveed, and Kristin Brown, who are sitting in that order] Hello, San Diego City College! How are you guys? [Response from crowd] Good, good.
The turnout is amazing, I can see people squeezed in all around the sides of the room and along the walls, while that might not be too comfortable, it's great in terms of numbers and the amount of people that have come out to listen to this very Correa 3 important debate, which does make sense because we have our very own Professor Daveed on the panel today. He is our department chair of History and Political Science. We have Kris Brown with us, Co President of the Brady Campaign and Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association. [Turns his attention toward guests] Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedules to be here today. It is very much appreciated and I think we're all equally as excited for the conversation we are having today.
Professor Daveed
Thank you, Gabe for thinking of me and bringing me into this panel. I'm honored to be sitting here with the both of you (Kris and Wayne) who are the faces of two of the largest gun nonprofits. Also Gabe, I appreciate the shout-out. Thank you for not making me feel like a meager participation trophy next to these two.
Gabe- ha-ha, you're so much more than that Professor, I would never... Also, there's still time for my grade to be brought down, so I couldn't.
Professor Daveed - Funny.
Kris Brown - [Interjects] I've got to say Gabriel, I feel just as honored to be here. To be able to share my thoughts and opinions on gun control in a room full of young men and women is really something. So, thank you for reaching out and having me.
Wayne LaPierre - Yes, I too appreciate the opportunity. We have serious discussions ahead and serious issues that impact each and every one of us.
Correa 4
Gabe - Yes, we definitely do. We have all heard of the mass shootings and the rallies, the protests, and calls for stricter gun laws, some even going as far as changing the Second Amendment or creating additional gun rights. There has been extensive media coverage on the issue, as well as in schools, making sure kids know the procedure if a shooting were to occur. It seems the debate hasn't settled down, it has only been fueled by more gun violence, those who are hungry for change, and others who strongly disagree with the proposed additions and/or restrictions to gun laws. So, my question for you guys is: Would universal background checks and a ban on assault-style rifles reduce gun violence in the United States?
Professor Daveed - I'll go first. I really like your question. I feel like it's come the closest to actually being a part of the real conversation, and could eventually lead to passing legislation. I say this, because earlier like you mentioned, many people speak about rewriting the second amendment and I feel that that will never in a million years happen. Here's why. Americans are very proud. As Americans, I think we pride ourselves in having the Constitution and having rights that set us apart from other countries, so much so that sometimes we let that get in the way of realizing when something just isn't working.
I'm not saying that I am against gun rights, because I'm not, but I do think that the laws we have set in place are letting ill people slip through the cracks, leading to many casualties and hurt families. So, to answer your question I would say that stricter gun laws would be a fair compromise for people who do depend on hunting or even enjoy sport shooting. There won't be a buyback program stripping individuals of their firearms or a change in the Bill of Rights, just a lengthier process to purchase a gun.
Correa 5 is how it should be if you know the severity that a bullet can cause, and if you are in fact only using a gun for the right reasons, you should be just fine.
Wayne LaPierre - It's not that Americans are proud, Professor. We are simply standing up for our rights, the same rights that have stood for hundreds of years. The Second Amendment clearly states that 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. Now, in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, the Supreme Court translated the Second Amendment into its intended meaning, ruling that it protects an individual's right to bear arms, and not just a National Guard's (Berman). The dilemma here is that it's a fact that blame is being shifted onto the NRA and guns instead of the people committing the acts. It is society that is fundamentally flawed. It is our values and morals, not guns. Guns are not committing crimes, people are.
Kris Brown - I think that that is precisely the problem Mr. LaPierre, the second amendment has been in place since 1791. Times have changed, we no longer use muskets or revolvers that hold less than six rounds. Technology has surged forward, I don't have to tell you how many kinds of guns we have now or how many bullets can be held in a single magazine with bump stocks that allow bullets to fire at twice the speed, allowing for mass casualties. But, changing the second amendment isn't apart of the conversation. So, I won't go any farther than that. The real question is about more restrictions and making the process of purchasing a gun more accurate and safe. That's apart of the Brady three tier goal. Our goal is to cut gun deaths in half.
How we plan on doing that is through expanding the Brady bill to cover all gun sales. Something that Correa 6 about 94% of American agree with, because currently 1 in 5 guns are sold without background checks. Also, for those who don't know the Brady bill mandated background checks. The second goal is to ban the sale of all assault-style weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines. The third is to enact extreme risk laws. Meaning laws that allow family members and law enforcement to seek a protective order to remove firearms from someone at risk of hurting themselves or others.
Professor Daveed - I'm very curious, What is stopping us from being able to expand the Brady bill? As you mentioned before 94% of Americans agree with that, so what's the hold up?
Kris Brown - Unfortunately, we have our answer in the politics of America today. The NRA contributed or lobbied about $50 million to get President Trump elected under a pro NRA agenda and many members of Congress, so although the polls clearly show support, Congress just isn't acting. What we have done over time, has been to get the states approval. We now have twenty states that have passed expansions of the Brady background through ballets, not their legislatures.
Wayne LaPierre - Yes Mrs. Brown, we do lobby. It is our way of giving back and supporting congressmen and women who deserve a seat in Senate and the House of Representatives. The NRA spends money, but so do dozens of organizations and causes. NRA money is not why gun control efforts are failing. We have only spent about $203 million since 1998. That figure is even smaller than it looks when you consider 30 percent of Americans, or about 100 million people, own a gun. By contrast, Wall Street and the broader financial industrial shelled out more than Correa 7 $1.1 billion in the 2016 election cycle alone.
The bulk of that $203 million doesn't actually go to candidates. It's spent on those "issue ads" that you see mostly on cable news channels during election years. Fewer than 20 percent of American gun owners are even NRA members. We give the beliefs of gun owners a voice, rather than frame what they should believe. The real power is with those voting gun owners, not the lobby group. We support regulations on bump stocks. However, we do not support expanding firearm background checks or banning certain guns. We instead urge Congress to loosen gun restrictions, along with passing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity, which would require states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. If we have more good people armed, then we could stop the crazy people with guns.
Professor Daveed - You don't think stricter gun laws would prevent future attacks? What about Australia? Or the U.K.? Just entertain the thought, because many countries have had mass shootings, and tightened their gun laws shortly after in order to prevent any further losses. The 1996 Port Arthur Massacre in Australia resulted in a man killing 35 people, and wounding over 24 with a semi-automatic rifle. Two weeks later firearms were regulated. The National Agreement on Firearms was put into effect, which prohibited automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary buyback program that took about 650,000 assault weapons out of public circulation. It also required licenses to Correa 8 demonstrate a genuine need for a particular type of gun, as well as taking a firearm safety course. In the U.K. something similar happened, as well as in Canada and Norway. When tragedy struck it was followed by change. Right now in the U.S. at the age of 18 you can purchase rifles, shotguns, and ammunition but have to be over 21 to purchase all other firearms like handguns.
And, in most states you can even carry a concealed gun in public. Did you also know that (speaking to audience) background checks are only required in eleven states since the Brady Bill expired in (1968-) 1998 and was never picked up by most states. Same with the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban that expired in 2004. The ban was signed by President Bill Clinton and outlawed nineteen kinds of military style-assault weapons, never being signed by Congress again.
Furthermore, most states do bar selling guns to high risk individuals, including felons, people with a mental illness history, fugitives, drug users, individuals with restraining orders against them, people who have given up their citizenship, dishonorably discharged military personnel, unauthorized migrants, and tourists. The U.S. depends on the NICS/FBI database for these background checks, which many times exclude crucial information that could indicate a risk. Last bit of information, I promise. There have been over 93 mass shootings since 1982, 42 of those occurring after Sandy Hook. The other 51 never exceeded 32 deaths in one case, while a single shooting in 2017 caused 58 fatalities, exceeding Columbine, Sandy Hook, Texas Baptist Church, Parkland High School, A Thousand Oaks nightclub, and the Orlando nightclub massacre that killed 49 people.
Cite this page
San Diego City College. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Highest Death by Gun Rates
The United States has near one of the highest death by gun rates, compared to other countries. This is a growing problem in today's world, when it comes school, and other public shootings.
For example the shooting that took place in a music festival October 1,2017 the gunman opened fire on more than 22 thousand people. This attack on the people left 59 people dead and more than 500 injured. This is a problem this shooting happened from a hotel room from across the way. The shooter was using a semi automatic weapon when he was opening fire. This is a problem that these weapons are able to do these things. One way we can decrease it is putting a restrictions on certain magazines. I think doing this will help people the gunman will not be able to do as much. I think another way we could do this is if we put in a course people have to go through and a test to get a license in order to purchase a firearm. I think another way we could make this decline is getting stricter on the background checks. I think doing this will make it harder for these weapons to land in the hands of people that should not have them.
People that are convicted criminals are getting there hands on guns. People don't stop and think how this happens. I think another thing that should be done is there to be a gps tracker in these weapons. Doing so if the weapon is stolen from a house or someone that is legally licensed to own the weapon it can be tracked down. I think another thing that should happen is a check gets done on the person seeing if they have any connections to someone that is a well known or highly convicted criminal. I think doing this would bring it down because you do not know if they are doing this for that person.
Now when it comes to school shootings they are becoming more a things. Schools are having threats placed on the school. I think one way for this could go down is to arm school teachers that are licensed and goes through a course to use that weapon when needed like government officials have to. I also think the teachers should have the weapon placed in a locked safe in there room so no one can overpower them from the classroom because students are starting to do these shootings. I think another way is we can place metal detectors at the entrances of the school. I think doing this will help more too because it would go off it someone has something they shouldn't have. And these metal detectors should have a armed guard standing at them at all times. I think another way we could bring it down is increase the age to purchase a firearm. I think doing this will be good because it gives people more time to grow up because the way the world is now people are not grown up by 18 and are doing things they should be doing.
Cite this page
Highest Death By Gun Rates. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Confermation Bias Within the Gun Control Debate
The physiological definition of confirmation bias by the American Psychological Association (APA) is the ability or act of ignoring, finding, manipulating, or modifying evidence and data to support your beliefs, ideas, or ideology. Dr. Raymond Richardson, a professor at Tufts University located in Medford Massachusetts, summarized in 1998 confirmation bias [as] the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand (175). Confirmation bias due to the fact that is can be for good or for evil is dangerous. The impact can be minor or of extreme proportions.
With confirmation bias the entire idea is a person could be doing so, with or without intent to do so. The only way to not have confirmation bias is to take the data, facts and sources. Then try to break them down to the weakest points or if the data is against the interest of the source dispersing it.
Confirmation bias is ever present in the conversations and laws involving the debate of Gun Control on all sides of the debate. The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (EFSGV) and its sister organization the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), a left-wing anti-gun tax exempt lobbyist group founded in 1974 and headquarter in Washington, DC only seeks and interprets evidence that support the ideology guns themselves are the cause of gun violence. On the other side, the National Rifle Association (NRA) - a pro-gun lobbyist group founded on November 16, 1871 in New York, NY and relocated to Fairfax, VA in 1993 - refuse to blame anything other than culture and education for the overall violence problem. Both sides of the argument on guns are flawed and show confirmation bias in the evidence they present to support their argument.
Anti-gun
In February 2018 EFSGV published a report using the Center of Disease Control (CDC) statistic on factors of deaths in the United States (US) to support their opinion that gun control laws like in the Common Wealth of Massachusetts actually works. However, the EFSGV had filtered the information provided by the CDC not separate homicide and murders, from suicides. Plus, even on the site the CDC states that the numbers provided are suppressed values (2018). This means that the data is already not an accurate representation of what is truly happening.
After contacting the CDC Public Affairs Officer (PAO) and asking what suppressed values on their website means. They provided a clarification statement of the values being suppressed or labeled as suppressed due to states, towns, or cities not being required to add the question of have you or a member of the household to the yearly census. Plus, as the CDC also stated in the response the data is hard for them to determine who in the family is reporting the death or injury. This is caused by the fact a person who is dead cannot fill out the US census questionnaire.
With the additional problem of the volatility of the answers provided in response to the questionnaire is not verified. Even more so the categories overlap or are differently defined by individuals answering the census questions. With this in mind about the accuracy and volatility of the data provided to the CDC in the census questionnaire that also changes year to year it is easy to manipulate at all levels.
As of November 20, 2018, the data on the CDC website was relabeled and no longer placed into charts. Unable to get a reason from the CDC Public Affairs Officer for the change in formatting and removal of the breakdowns in percentages. The new setup of the CDC data states it is census data in clear text, in multiple locations and does not attempt to break the data down for you. Leaving you to make the determination of the meaning of the data.
The EFSGV confirmation bias to support the gun control agenda lead them to manipulated the data to show what they wanted or need to see, to confirm the beliefs, ideas, and ideology of gun control. They provided false validity to the data by not stating it was data from a census questionnaire. Leaving the reader to believe it had more validity than what it truly does.
Using the same data set provided by the CDC prior to the November 20, 2018 update just by removing all the filters on types of Intent of Death and Mechanism of Death the data chart of percentages showed an entirely different picture from what EFSGV was trying to make in the publication. Firearm related deaths in Massachusetts fell down from 65.0% to only 7.2% of deaths. Leaving the highest cause of deaths in Massachusetts being drug poisoning at 32.2% and falls causing 15.9% of deaths. Just by removing the filters on the data provided by the CDC you are two times more likely to die as a result of a motor vehicle than by a firearm.
With the post November 20, 2018 update of the CDC website the data in Table 1.1 and 1.2 shows Massachusetts being in the group of safest states with New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. However, once you filter it to just homicides involving a firearm in table 2.1 and 2.2 you see that Massachusetts has some counties that falls higher than the majority of the country. Even though they still are within the extreme low rate per 100,000 population leaves little to work with to improve in Massachusetts.
It also gives EFSGV little to argue about gun violence. The only difference between tables 1 and tables 2 is the fact table 1 shows homicides, suicides, and legal interventions. With table 2 only showing homicides. The only conclusion from the data is that Massachusetts has suicides and legal interventions resulting in deaths as a result of firearm related injuries.
With some filtering and over validation of the data provided it is possible to confirm any belief, expectations, and hypothesis at hand. Being caused by the fact the CDC uses very wide net categories that are not well defined and have no legal definition being left to the person who is answering the question on the census to interpret. The EFSGV took advantage of the census data provided and shaped it to their cause.
EFSGV statements of the need for gun control to stop gun-violence is shown to be invalid with their source the CDC. Facts about the data they are using are ignored and not reported in the publication, misleading the reader to believe the data has more validity than it does.
Pro-gun
With the National Rifle Association (NRA) you have a YouTube publication by Colion Noir a NRATV host who in a story of Chicago starts with news reports and videos of crime and murder in Chicago. Then calling Chicago, Chiraq referring to it being equal to an active war zone. In the video Colion Noir interviews Leonard GLC Harris a Hip-Hop artist who contradicts the statement made earlier in the video. Leonard Harris points out, what gets the ratings and news is murder and mayhem... If you are constantly seeing murder and mayhem [explicit] you will become a reflection of that (NRA & Noir, 2018).
Leonard Harris later on in the video points out the crime problem is a culture problem. The number one way anybody learns is through the social learning theory. You can go to school all day and read what's in the books[...] But, when you see your mother and father do and your friends[...] on a daily bases that's what you are going to normalize.
Leonard Harris ignores the fact and example that goes against the arguments he made. Leonard Harris who grew up in Chicago with the criminal parents, friends, and environment is a perfect example, that it is not only a social learning problem only. He is not a criminal and is a productive member of the community serving as perfect example as a Hip-Hop artist.
They talk about African American culture and social learning being the problem, even though they have evidence stating it is not the only problem and cause for gun crime. They made the statements ignoring the examples and evidence that goes against the argument they were trying to make.
Cite this page
Confermation Bias Within The Gun Control Debate. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Growing up in Texas
Growing up in Texas your first purchase as an Adult is either a truck or a firearm because its the Texan thing to do. Buying a gun in Texas is very a simple process. All you need is a valid State ID or Driver's License with your current address and no criminal history.
The Federal Government requires a person to be eighteen and older to purchase a rifle or shotgun and twenty one to purchase a handgun. The Government does not have complete say over the states and let's them decide what requirements to enforce to purchase a firearm while using the age limits as a based guideline. For example, in the State of Illinois you are required to take a three week gun safety class in order to receive a license and be able to purchase. Once the gun is purchase you are then obligated to register with the State of Illinois.
In Texas, you only require a valid ID or Driver's License and pass the National Instant Criminal Background Check. The background check can take anywhere from five minutes to up to seven days. Speeding up the background check is possible by inputting your social security number in as it is optional but it helps the system find you more quickly. Personally, it takes me ten minutes to do the background check and walk out with my firearm.
I am sure you remember this most recent Senatorial election since you were involved. You voiced your thoughts and plans for more control in Texas. I believe that lead to loss in the election. Since Texan men and women love their guns as much as they love there moms. While some people believe that it is relatively easy to buy a gun in Texas, it really is not that way. Companies are now requiring that you take a special training class in order for you to sell.
This training includes learning the parts of a firearm, how to break down a firearm, how to identify a straw purchase, and most importantly how to fill out the form 4473 which completes the firearm purchase. This training could be as short as a couple of days but as long has a couple of weeks. Companies train their employees this way so that they ensure that a firearm does not end up in the hands of someone who is prohibited from owning a firearm. Even though a training class to prevent this is mandatory. I do feel as if there should be an extra precaution in the re-sale aspect of firearms.
Attempted straw purchases happen a majority if the time. A straw purchase is when someone purchases a gun for someone else who is not allowed to purchase or own firearms. A straw purchase is Third Degree Felony and is punishable crime of two-ten years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. Most people believe that this is the way criminals buy their guns but this is not completely true.
Stricter gun laws in Texas isn't going to stop a criminal from getting his hands on a firearm. If a criminal wants a gun he's going to get in one way or another. Stricter gun laws is only punishing the responsible gun owners who solely have firearms for hunting and protection. I feel as if we should focus more on the illegal gun trades and illegal reselling of guns instead of upsetting the NRA.
If we had the same gun laws as Illinois, it would only put a first time gun buyer at risk. For example, a mother of three kids trying to escape an abusive husband for the safety of her children and herself. She tries to buy a gun and takes a three week class just to get a permit to purchase and in the middle of the course her abusive ex husband finds her new house breaks in and kills her. Most people would say she should have called the police. She should have gotten the police involved, but knowing someone in that exact situation, I know the police only act if you have solid evidence and proof. The national average response time for a police call is eighteen minutes.
Imagine the mother of three didn't have to take a three week course only to get a permit in order to purchase. She would have that firearm by her bedside with a round in the chamber and instead of having to wait eighteen minutes for the police to show up. She does what she has to do to protect her family and gets to spend the holidays with her three kids and her kids don't have to grow up with the memory of there mother being murdered by there father who sadly, might get off and have custody of them. Imagine how there lives would end up.
People think that some don't need an AR-15 which stands for Armalite Rifle for home defense but here in the State of Texas you have the right to own for home defense. Which most Texans take advantage of and they sleep more at peace and feel more safe because of it. Unlike California, we have no restrictions on magazine capacity. We have no restrictions on how I can load and unload my rifle. If someone has the money and wants to buy a Barret M107 chambered in .50 Cal for home defense then by all means do so. The government should not be able to tell the people what they can and can't defend themselves, there family and property with.
Gun confiscation is out the window as well. When the government attempts to try and pass a law to take away its citizens guns, that is when we should arm ourselves. Back in the days of the colonies the crown attempted to take our guns away in order to have complete control over us. In Germany in the mid 1930's Hitler also took his people's guns away and look how well that turned out. The Founding Fathers knew that the citizens of this great Nation needed to be protected from a government that was trying to overstep its boundaries.
In conclusion, if Texas had the same gun laws as California or Illinois it wouldn't be protecting people, it would be putting lives at risk. We as citizens have a right to defend ourselves and we have a right to bear arms. The second amendment to the Constitution was put in for a reason. If you believe that there needs to be stricter gun laws or no guns at all, have someone break into your house in the middle of the night while your family is sleeping and the only thing you have to defend yourself with is a bat. You lose your sense of security. I pray that doesn't happen to you, but until it does, keep thinking it is okay to try and limit our guns.
Cite this page
Growing Up In Texas. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
Gun Control in Schools
The first known school related shootings happened January 30th, 1968 at Miami Jackson High School. There were four shootings that year; five people were killed while 29 were wounded. In 2015 we saw 15 school shootings occur, along with nine deaths and 26 wounded. In 2018 there has been the most frequent amount of school shootings from january 1st, 2018 to May 18, 2018, there have been 11 school shootings with 33 deaths and 55 wounded (Jason Cato). The question that the federal and state governments have been asking is how to fix the issue of school shootings in America. I do not believe that there is an ultimate solution because 60 percent of mass shootings are done by people with mental illnesses (Metzel and MacLeish), but there are definitely ways to bring that number down and arming teachers within schools is a good start.
A large occurence that has stressed the people to care more about policies regarding guns is false reporting of gun violence. An organization called Everytown for Gun Safety reported that in the first 18 weeks of 2018, there were 18 school shootings - there were five (John Woodrow Cox and Steven Rich). Many Americans believed this statistic to be true, including Bernie Sanders, Cher, MSNBC, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, The New York Daily News, and almost every other news channel you can think of. The reason they can get away with this is by their view of what school shootings are, they say that any discharging from a firearm in the school property is considered a threat to that schools safety, and therefore a school shooting. At a Michigan high school someone fired several rounds during a basketball game from a gun in the parking lot after school hours; no one was injured, but it was labeled as an incident of a school shooting on their website. There is no need to exaggerate an already horrifying statistic. The amount of incidents reported on their website makes people either think that this is a normal occurrence, or think there should be a ban on all guns. Neither of these is what the country needs.
The idea of arming teachers was thought in 2012 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown Connecticut, but wasn't looked at very closely as a solution or a way of preventing school shootings. Once America saw the peak of school shootings in 2018 a sheriff investigating the Parkland Florida high school massacre said that as a last line of defense teachers should be allowed to carry a firearm. Many gun activists have been supporters of the idea, including President Trump who said "A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what happened" (Education Week Staff). Contrary to popular belief this movement was not supposed to force teachers into becoming police officers, it's supposed to be used as a last resort for teachers that feel comfortable protecting their students that have training and experience with firearms. The idea of this is to have one or a few teachers centralized in the school carry a firearm in a locked drawer of their desk in case there is a school shooter, in which case if anyone is in serious danger they can take the role of a police officer in protecting that student. Some Texas schools are already trying to implement this.
Nearly all mass shootings have taken place in gun-free-zones, in this case schools. This is because if the shooter is the only one in a group of people with a gun, he/she doesn't have to worry about repercussions of someone else firing back. This is portrayed very well in switzerland; the country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people, but one of the lowest gun death rates in the world. Their last mass shooting was 17 years ago, this is because the country teaches citizens when they are very young to respect guns. Switzerland wants gun knowledge to be implemented early, and they do that by holding shooting contests for kids aged 13-17 and they have a mandatory military service for men, so most men learn how to use guns safely and effectively. A cool thing about this is that having an armed citizenry has helped the swiss keep neutral in war since 1815 (Hilary Brueck). Obviously this exact solution would take generations to perfect, but some of the ideology can be implemented, like putting guns in knowledgeable peoples hands to protect people in gun-free-zones.
In conclusion, the problem with gun violence is that there aren't enough guns in the hands of knowledgeable people that could protect students. Giving guns to teachers that would feel comfortable with guns and knows how to use them and is trained on when to use them could be a way to shut down the deadliness and frequency of these school shootings. At this moment in time, this is the best solution to an unsolvable problem in the United States.
Cite this page
Gun Control In Schools. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
What Causes the Deaths
"It was just so scary, you could hear him walking, you'd hear him walking right past our classroom.” (CBS News) “We were scared. I was yelling to him. Don’t shoot! Don’t shoot!” (Maui News) “This is going to be absolutely heart-wrenching time for me and my family. His younger brothers and soon-to-be born sister would miss him terribly.” (NPR) “I have two words: gun control. Now, now, now, now!
No more NRA! No more money! Gun control now!”, a mother whose son died in the Thousand Oaks Shooting said in an interview. (Fox News) When I watch these interviews with relatives of gun victims and witnesses of shootings, I feel extremely heartbroken and grieve for these dead victims from the bottom of my heart. None of these victims shot by a gun deserved to die. None of these relatives or friends of victims deserve to lose their beloved one.
What causes the deaths of these innocent people? What makes their relatives and friends suffer from extreme grief? The answer is the gun problem in the United States, which is fairly serious and needs urgent solutions now. Consequently, we need to take immediate measures to solve this problem and alleviate preventable deaths in the United States. The gun problem is obviously a big problem in the United States now. Barack Obama once said, after the shooting in Oregon, "We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.” (Obama), which means that the United States has far more mass shootings than other advanced country in the world.
Time and again, a large number of innocent people die in mass shootings in the United States. For example, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting was a big mass shooting on the night of October 1, which shocked the whole world. Stephen Paddock, 64 years old, shot people at a music festival from a room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured in just about ten minutes. When the police broke in, Paddock was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. (Wikipedia) People killed or injured by the killer, should have enjoyed themselves at the concert and went home, happily telling their friends and relatives how wonderful the concert was, but because of a killer and those fatal guns, that day became one of the worst days of their lives.
Many victims had no chance even to talk with their relatives and friends. The Las Vegas shooting, as the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the United States, drew people’s attention to gun control and sparked debate over gun control one again. Dianne Feinstein introduced a gun control bill to ban bump stocks to the Senate. (ABC news)11 states banned bump stocks and several other states were considering banning it. (History) Students are also exposed to shootings in the United States. According to research conducted by EveryTown, there were about 89 incidents of gunfire in schools in 2018.
More than 2,700 children and teenagers were shot and killed and more than 14,500 are shot and injured every year and about 3 million children are exposed to gun shootings. (EveryTown Research) The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is one of the most famous school shootings, in which 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults before he finally shot himself in the head. Schools should have been a place full of students’ laughing and of reading sounds, but it is not because of the all too frequent interruptions and sounds of gunfire which destroy the peace.
No child should experience shootings, which have a devastating impact on the mental and physical condition of students. Another big problem is the high rate of gun suicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21,334 of 42,773 suicides were carried out with a gun in 2014 and guns lead to more deaths than every other method. (TheTrace) This is especially terrible because after interviewing suicide survivors, about 90 percent of people who fail in killing themselves choose not to kill themselves. (TheTrace) We can draw a conclusion that two thirds of people use guns to end their life and the majority of people give up committing suicide if they do not succeed in killing themselves at one time.
However, guns are extremely fatal. There is a chance for people who want to kill themselves not using a gun to survive, which may change their whole life because of that survival, such as going on to live optimistically. For people who choose to use a gun to die, they may have no chance to survive at all because almost 90% percent of them will die. No other ways of committing suicide are as lethal as using a gun. People also suffer from accidental shootings in the United States. From 2006 to 2016, about 6,096 people died from accidental shootings, according to the data released by Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC) Many people never take training courses to learn how to use a gun at all and some of them do not treat guns seriously.
These are some of reasons that lead to accidental deaths with a gun. Due to the huge number of gun deaths, gun control is a big issue in the United States and we must take effective measures to solve it to create a peaceful country. Why is gun control still a problem in the United States and cannot be solved effectively and properly for decades? The first reason is its history and gun culture. The United States is a revolutionary country and gun ownership is a tradition. Fearing a tyrannical government, The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment says: “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.” (Wikipedia) Therefore, some Americans argue that bearing arms is one of the greatest protections of their individual rights and democracy of their country and cannot be violated.
According to a Pew Center study, Americans own the most guns per person in the world. (Pew Research Center) They regard gun ownership as liberty, freedom and a way to protect themselves. Second, economics is the base; arms trade and industry play an important role in American economy. As international arms industry data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows, the global arms trade is worth $398.2 billion in 2017, and the United States remains dominant, with about $226.6 billion, which accounted for 57 % of total. (SIPRI) Arms trade is a major industry in America that affects policies to some extent.
Businessmen will oppose any policies that have a bad influence on their business. Many gun groups, such as the NRA, also affect the polices. It is estimated that NRA had spent $14 million to oust Barack Obama in 2012 by the New York Times. (New York Times) Because of the pervading gun culture and those businessmen and those gun groups, it becomes harder to carry out gun control policies so that gun control still remains a big issue in the United States. Why should we take immediate measures to alleviate preventable gun deaths? First, no innocent individual killed in a mass shooting or by accident deserves to die. No one wants to see their relatives or friends killing by a totally stranger, and what they finally receive is a sum of cold compensation. It is not fair.
The number of gun deaths in the United States is 14,117 until now in 2018 and there have been 334 mass shootings. (Gun Violence Archive) Many innocent citizens were killed ruthlessly, which is against humanity. Some people think that guns are not problems; those perpetrators can also kill people using other weapons. In fact, there is a huge difference between guns and some other weapons, such as screwdrivers. On December 25, 2018, a 49-year-old man injured 6 people with a screwdriver in Shandong University of Science and Technology; one victim did not survive and others were just injured slightly. (Sohu)Could you imagine what would happen if the perpetrator was armed with a gun instead of a screwdriver?
What would the death toll be and how many people would lose their relatives and friends forever? The result would be totally different; it is never the same due to the high lethality of guns. Therefore, we should take measures to reduce the number of gun deaths. Second, we all deserve to feel safe in our society. Solving the gun problem can promote citizens’ well-being and sense of security by creating a safe environment. Therefore, the government should create a peaceful domestic environment for its citizens so as to ensure the sustainable development and function of our society and economy.
A government, which can keep its country safe, peaceful and prosperous, is a competent and successful government, and will build a good and powerful image of country. Furthermore, without a peaceful domestic environment, there will be no sustainable development and the whole country will be in trouble. Researchers from the law center estimate that the cost of gun violence on the American economy is about $229 billion every year. $8.6 billion of it is used for emergency and medical care, etc. (Lawcenter) If we take effective measures to alleviate gun deaths, we can reduce the expenditure on gun violence, which can be used to build a better country. Third, taking proper and effective measures to solve the gun problem can promote citizens’ confidence in government.
Adlai Stevenson I has said, “When we lose faith in the system, we have lost faith in everything we fight and spend for.” (Adlai Stevenson I) It is important for the United States to win the confidence and credibility of its citizens. Fourth, we should also realize that shootings do great harm to our children, such as psychological problems, which cause a long-term scar in their heart. Children may suffer from gun-related trauma, insomnia, nightmares and intrusive thoughts, making it hard to fall asleep and always afraid of being attacked again. This will lead to distraction and bad performance in class.
What’s worse, some children may regard owning a gun as a way to show their power and better protect themselves, which increases the possibility that they use violence as a means of solving problems when they feel angry. This is extremely dreadful for a home, a community and a country. It is not too late to save these children by taking proper measures to reduce the number of children who may be exposed to gun shootings. In conclusion, alleviating preventable gun deaths has so many advantages for the development of the country that we should take immediate measures now. What can we do to alleviate the preventable gun deaths?
Different people have different opinions on this problem and I think the government should take its responsibility, such as enacting specific laws. B. R. Ambedkar has said, “Law and order are the medicine of the body politic and when the body politic gets sick, medicine must be administered.” (B. R. Ambedkar) Gun control laws are the medicine of the increasing gun deaths. On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man, Martin Bryant armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot and killed 35 people, and wounded 23 others, in what was known as the Port Arthur Massacre. (Wikipedia) After this horrible and terrifying mass shooting, Australia responded quickly and passed the National Firearms Agreement only 12 days later. Australia banned certain semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. (Wikipedia) A study conducted by Simon Chapman from Australia's University of Sydney found that Australia has no fatal mass shootings (more than five victims, not including the perpetrator) from 1997 to May 2016 and the rate of gun deaths also dropped quickly after 1996. (JAMA) The enacting of gun control laws does lead to the reduction of gun deaths and mass shootings.
The United States can follow the example of Australia by enacting laws to ban semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. However, due to the unique gun culture and political and legal challenges, it seems that enacting rigid laws by the American government to ban guns is difficult, but there are still many things the government can do, such as carrying out policies to tighten gun owner licensing, improve k the standards for gun registration, and check backgrounds carefully. It is too easy for Americans to buy a gun, in shops or on the Internet and many guns are sold illegally through the black market. “According to the U.S. Department of Justice, large numbers of firearms are sold anonymously at more than 4,000 gun shows each year.
That averages to about 11 gun shows on any given day.” (NBC News) We do not know who buys those guns and what they will do with these guns. There is a possibility that some of the buyers are terrorists who want to kill other people. In order to reduce the risk of this, the government should check backgrounds thoroughly and consolidate the gun market to destroy the black market by tracking down illegal gun sales. Similarly, waiting periods that delay gun purchases will also reduce gun violence. Second, school education is also important because “Early childhood education is the key to the betterment of society.” (Maria Montessori) Schools must construct a culture of respect in children for all human life and put emphasis on education on ethical principles so that students can form correct moral values and outlooks.
Teachers can also teach students how to deal with annoying affairs properly and correctly, which will definitely have a positive effect on students’ mental health. More importantly, schools should offer classes in teaching children the dangers of possessing guns, how fatal guns are and how to behave around the guns. Parents who own guns at home should also put them in a safe place to reduce access to children who may hurt themselves or others accidentally. Third, limiting ammunition capacity is particularly effective and practical to reduce the number of mass shooting deaths.
Researcher Chris Koper estimates that it may lead to a 1% reduction in mass shootings, or 650 people fewer shot each year. (The Guardian) With limited ammunition capacity, killers cannot make devastating mass shootings as easy as today. To conclude, we need to take immediate measures to solve the gun problem and alleviate preventable gun deaths in the United States. Gun problem is still under hot debate and is an urgent issue that needs to be solved. It causes several problems, such as mass shootings, gun suicides and accidental gun deaths, etc.
To create a peaceful domestic environment and promote citizens’ confidence in government and their well-being, we should solve the gun problem. To save the greatest number of lives, we should solve the gun problem. To provide a peaceful growth environment for our children, we should solve the gun problem. With its unique gun culture and complicated gun reality, solving gun problem and alleviating preventable gun death is a long-term run, which needs our joint efforts and cooperation. Time is limited and do not let those perpetrators take any other innocent people’s lives from now on. Only with the endeavor of the whole society can we build a better America, and I believe we can do these things well without having a gun.
Cite this page
What Causes The Deaths. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
All of Citizens have a Legal Right
When a country with less than five percent of the world's population has nearly half of the world's privately owned guns and makes up nearly a third of the world's mass shootings, it's time to stop saying guns make us safer.” - Dr. Dashanne Stokes
America is a country with an endless selection of guns with all different types of sizes and levels of damage available. However guns are beginning to become a problem. We live in a country where guns have evolved from being a way of defending a nation, to a way for a 19 year old to take 17 people’s lives in a Florida high school. 42% of US citizens live in a household with a gun .
All of citizens have a legal right to own these firearms. If these citizens all own guns legally, how do these mass shootings keep happening? In America, the hardest thing you will have to do in order to buy a gun is go through a simple background check in order to get a permit. Some states, such as Colorado, do not even require a permit to purchase a gun. This makes it exceedingly effortless for a gun to fall into the wrong hands such as those of someone mentally ill, or a disturbed teenager looking to hurt his/her classmates.
America needs to instate more strict gun control in order to prevent more mass shootings, as well as one on one gun violence in order to potentially save the lives of thousands of Americans. Since there are so many different sides, and different arguments, America has struggled with this disagreement tirelessly.
The Second amendment is a greatly controversial topic in our society. The second amendment says that “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.” Right after the second Amendment was put in place, people were ecstatic. This was in the 1700’s, and all it meant for them was that they are now able to go hunting, or defend themselves much easier than before.
Mass shooting were not an unsettling issue for them. The Second Amendment states that owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Since then guns have developed rapidly, but our laws and restrictions have not. In 1791, there was a miniscule amount of gun violence compared to today, yet our laws have scarcely changed. Back then, the only reason an individual might own a gun would be for either self defense, or hunting. Since the Second Amendment was ratified, America has had an ongoing disagreement about whether we need to instate better, more strict gun control.
Due to America’s weak gun control, there have been over 307 mass shootings in 2018 alone. Everytime America experiences another mass shooting, we see news articles, rallys, and cries for better gun control. We also see people pleading mental health, or saying that if the school had been better prepared, this wouldn’t have happened. The problem is schools are prepared. They practice shooter drills, make sure kids know exactly what to do in the event of a shooting, yet they keep happening. The same can be said about homicides.
You could be walking through the street and someone could fire at you, unprovoked. It is almost impossible to defend yourself when you are being fired at in the street by a criminally insane person. The sad, but apparent reality is that mass shootings keep happening, and our lawmakers have done little to change that. This may be because doing so is a challenge, because of all the opposing sides. Some sides think America's gun control is good just as it is, and others disagree. Others do not want to see change because they fear it will mean they would no longer be able to own a gun, but that is completely untrue.
The gun control many keep asking for is not to rid America of all guns, but instead to make it harder for dangerous people to acquire an assault rifle. This means that people who do not have the intention of hurting people with their guns, or have not had previous altercations with the police or other law enforcement could still own guns. The only way you would be prevented from purchasing or owning a gun would be if you have ever been arrested, have a history of violence, have been declared mentally ill by a professional, etc. The change most people are looking to see is not drastic.
A simple background check, or permit required to purchase a gun could save countless lives. This may not help prevent all gun violence, because there are always going to be people who find their way around the law, but it will certainly make it much more difficult for people to do a significant amount of damage. Many people looking to hurt someone are not going to go through all the trouble of getting a permit, due to the fact that they are looking for accessibility.
Some states, such as Oregon, have taken matters into their own hands. On February 15, the house had approved the bill to forbid convicted domestic abusers, and stalkers from purchasing assault rifles. This law was passed in light of the Parkland shooting that occured in Florida on February 15, 2018. Not only has this law made countless people feel safer, but it has the potential to prevent many deaths by the means of gun violence. "I think survivors of domestic violence shouldn't have to live in fear that their abusers can obtain a firearm," -Knute Buehler.
This quote shows how, by instating better laws along the lines of what Oregon did, we can not only help survivors feel safer, but we can also help students, children, and people walking the streets alone at night feel out of harm's way. Although this is only one state out of 50, it is a huge step towards getting America safer. This has been a huge triumph for everyone. After years of fighting and pain, they have finally succeed and their voice finally being heard.
School is supposed to be a place for children to go and learn in a habitat where they can feel safe. Not a place where students have to fear that they may not get to come home that day. Almost every school is required to practice their “active shooter drills” once or twice a year. This is not only a scary thing for some students, but should not be necessary. There were 94 school gun violence incidents this year . America has never seen a number of school shootings so high since 1970. This is awful, yet not surprising.
The Number of death by guns has been consistently rising. Parents are sending their kids to school, expecting them to come home safer, and maybe even a little smarter. They should not have to worry about their kids getting killed in a place they are supposed to learn, a place they go everyday. One of the most dangerous shootings to occur was Columbine. 13 students and teachers were killed, and over 20 injured when 2 highschool students opened fire at Columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado. After this had happened, the two had ended their own lives. The two had purchased the three guns for 500$, and the man who sold the guns to them was put in jail. The families of those killed have suffered endlessly. Many have gone on to advocate for gun control, others are in too much pain.
America is ranked 27th in the world for the highest number of suicides per year. Firearms were the cause of 51% of suicides in 2016. “The study also showed that the odds of successfully committing suicide are 140 times greater when a gun is used than for any other method.” This is true because, most likely, a gun will kill you instantly.
This leaves no opportunity for the person who tried to end their lives to back out, or go to a hospital to get help. More than 20,000 Americans commit suicide using a gun every year. This number would go down tremendously if so many troubled people did not have such easy access to guns. Some of these guns used for suicide were not owned illegally, which is why people buying a gun should learn the importance of keeping their gun locked away. Several people who commit suicide and fail do not try it again, but with a gun, there are no second chances, only death.
The NRA, or National Rifle Association, is in charge of almost all guns and rifles. People have different opinions of the NRA. Some people like it, because it brings in a substantial amount of money to our government. Others do not like the NRA because the NRA does not believe we need stricter gun control. The more guns are purchased, the more money the NRA receives. If gun control gets tighter, and less people purchase guns, then NRA’s profits go down.
Therefor, the NRA does not want tighter gun control, and since they contribute so much money towards our government, neither do our politicians. Even if gun control got improved, people could still purchase guns, it would just become a little more challenging, which is why people are getting upset. The NRA would still make profits, just maybe not as much.
Gang violence is another big issue revolving guns. Gun related homicide is most prevalent in gangs. Seeing that guns do more damage than almost every other accessible weapon, this is understandable. A gun can do significantly more damage than a knife, or other weapons. Guns are the most popular choice of weapon surrounding gangs and fights. The problem is, an automatic rifle can kill so many people per minute that time is not even an issue. Other guns, such as handguns require reloading, and are more time consuming, ergo doing less damage.
Mass shootings have been going on for a while, but America has never seen this many happening and this often. The first mass shooting recorded was on August 1st, 1966, when a sniper killed 17 people at the university of texas. Mass shooting have always been a problem, and always will be, unless we figure out a way to get guns out of the hands of people looking to do damage. The first gun ever created was a simple pistol made by Joseph Laumann. This gun could do very little harm or destruction. To them, this was just a tool for hunting. There was no danger that came along with it. Nowadays, we have AR-15s that can kill hundreds of people without even needing to reload. This shows how far guns have evolved, and how little our laws have.
One on one hate crimes are another deadly problem with guns. People who have a hatred for each other can sometimes get angry and take matters into their own hands. A woman was taking her three sons to a dental appointment in Westminster, Colorado, when the women got in an a uncomfortable encounter in traffic with the driver. The driver then followed her and her sons to the dentist and opened fire, killing her son and injuring several others. The man who killed him was also mentally ill, and had not been taking his medication. If stricter laws had been put in place, he would not have been able to get a gun, keep it concealed in his car, and kill this 13 year old boy.
A long term impact of America’s gun laws are the countless lives we have lost due to guns. In 2017, 39,773 were lost lives due to guns. These peoples families have mourned and grieved the lives of their children, parents, or family members who lost their lives due to a tragic incident caused by guns. Most of these incidents could have been prevented if these criminals were not able to access guns. If we were to screen people before they bought a gun, you would be able to discover people who were mentally ill, or people with a history of crimes. Survivors of shootings are scared to step foot back at school, young kids are scared to walk alone at night, and people everywhere are scare of getting caught in a bad situation and ending up dead. Americas should not have to spend their entire lives in fear of when someone with a gun could show up and end it all.
Mental health is another issue. People who have had a violent history or want to hurt others have an extremely easy way to do that now. Stricter gun laws would prevent people deemed mentally ill by a professional to purchase a firearms, but it is very hard for someone selling a gun to be able to tell if someone is mentally ill based off of looks. This is why background check and/or screenings before purchasing a gun are crucial to keeping people safe.
People are giving up everything trying to find a solution to ending this. March for our lives, a famous organization that rallies for gun control, have been working harder than ever. Children have been given a platform to speak out, and they have certainly ceased that opportunity. Kids have been speaking out about the fear they felt when a shooter entered their school, and killed 17 of their classmates. They have also used all the pain of this tragedy to raise awareness and and create a change in our society. They have been advocating for our country for countless nights, and some change has been seen, such as oregon changing its laws, and california doing the same. This has been a huge triumph for anyone who has ever had to worry about feeling unsafe at school or in public. If laws like these continue to change, so will the number of deaths by gun violence.
To sum up everything stated thus far, in order to save lives, some change needs to be seen. Gun violence is an issue Americans have been facing constantly for years and years, and will continue to face until some change has been made. We have have lost countless lives and battles, have worked endlessly trying to convince politicians to change laws, and have come so close, yet so far.Gun violence has come in many forms, such as, gang violence, suicides, homicides, etc. All just as tragic as the next. In order to keep our children and society safe, we need to see a change, and a big one too.
Cite this page
All Of Citizens Have A Legal Right. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
The Whole Gun Issue is Kind
The whole Gun issue is kind of interesting if you view it from a non-political, and strictly economic, perspective. The US was founded on, and can thank its amazing early and rapid growth due to the power of three major financial institutions : Cotton, Tobacco, and Slavery. Property ownership is another one, but not nearly as powerful as those three.
Because many people were not intellectually mature enough to yet perceive slavery as inherently wrong, and tobacco as bad for you ( We can leave cotton out of that, although it is directly tied to slavery), these financial institutions flourished for quite some time. It took about 250 (1620- 1850's) years for people to wake up to the fact that slavery is inherently unjust, wrong and not suited to an advanced civilization (obviously making slavery illegal did nothing to address racism & segregation, but it was a good first step). It took about 350 years ( 1620s- 1960's) for people to realize that tobacco is deadly, thanks to the obvious ( millions dying from lung cancer).
The financial power of slavery was so great that it caused a Civil War, with thousands and thousands of grisly deaths and men lost.
The aftermath of the end of slavery as illegal was the next 100 years of segregation, lynchings, and horrific racism, which continues to this day, although, en masse, is probably less than ever, and will continue to dwindle away in tiny increments due to a an ever more mixed society.
The financial power of tobacco was ( and is ) so utterly huge that they fought the regulations against them tooth and nail ( you can look this up on your own). Tobacco companies have lost huge amounts of business in the USA - sales are nothing compared to what they used to be - they don't even try here anymore - they have given up, and now ( literally) focus on selling tobacco to children in 3rd world countries. There's a great and very factual John Oliver piece on tobacco that's worth watching on YouTube.
All along this trajectory, guns and weapons have been a developing and powerful industry. They were part of every war fought, they were part of controlling and eliminating the Native Americans, controlling slaves, and so forth. With every skirmish, planned or unplanned, ammunition and bullets were needed. Wars are great for people who make these things, because these things must be bought, from private companies. Everyone knows wars are great for business.
Once the whole country was settled, fences built, people no longer living in make shift houses where bears and mountain lions can get in, Indians all dead or on reservations, etc etc - guns, as a domestic weapon, have little to no real purpose as a necessary tool, but are now a leftover relic from a bygone era.
Because our society was so used to these things being around, however, these "insta-kill" devices, it only made sense for them to be carried by police, because in a society where citizens can freely have them, they must be had by the enforcers, so that the enforcers can keep up with those they are enforcing. So while nobody was really looking, guns kept proliferating. We lost a president to one, a Beatle, an MLK, but, these tragedies were never viewed as a result of the proliferation of guns, but people. But that's not entirely accurate. Had guns been viewed as unnecessary in an advanced civilization earlier, or only needed and issued ( as it says in the U.S. Constitution) for a militia defending native soil - these deaths could have been easily avoided.
The weapons industry does not want to go the way of Tobacco or Slavery. This is why- in no uncertain terms - the issue has been made into one about people's rights. This is a made up issue. By communicating this propaganda about people's rights being infringed upon, they have built a powerful narrative that controls people's fears, continues their business, and makes them profit.
In a capitalist society, all industries will fight HARD and at all costs to keep their profits coming in. This is why the tobacco companies fought regulations so hard. This is why there was literally a war over slavery and the perceived "rights" being taken away to own another human.
The reason that Big Tobacco ultimately lost - and now everyone agrees that cigarettes are bad, and should be kept out of everybody's faces -- is because of the overwhelming evidence. So many deaths, so much cancer, so much ugliness. There came a "tipping point" where all could agree that cigarettes are terrible for you.
It may be the case, that until there is literally a shooting death in every town, every day, on every street, literally - or maybe another civil war - this one about guns -- that it will take something this extreme -- to force everyone - not just the government- but everyone- to collectively agree it's time to put guns back where they belong, in history, with the other bad ideas we've had, like the absence of seatbelts, no traffic lights, and the 1000 other things that caused death and misery for so long before we all woke up to the fact that it was time to make our amazing country safer for everyone.
Or maybe that time is here, and we can all collectively agree that it's time to move past the need for deadly weapons as something we all need.
Just a thought.
Cite this page
The Whole Gun Issue Is Kind. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/14/
