Introduction
Gun control is a highly debated and contentious topic in the United States. While one group supports gun control and believes that regulation of this area will lead to a decrease in mass murders and suicides, another group argues that the ability to possess firearms is the right granted to Americans by the Constitution and can be used to protect themselves. As a result of such a debate, many documentaries were released, and speeches were given, with each group striving to prove their point.
Nevertheless, one issue continues to persist, which is a rising number of homicides and suicides among school children. The documentary Bowling for Columbine delves deeper into the problem, its origins, and the necessity of gun control. Despite gun culture permeating the nation and millions of people becoming desensitized to crimes and risks of weak gun control measures, regulations can help mitigate homicides and suicides.
Understanding the Artifact: “Bowling for Columbine”
Before delving deeper into the topic of gun-related homicides and suicides and recommendations, it is necessary to review the chosen artifact. The documentary Bowling for Columbine, directed by Michael Moore in 2002, covers the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado and the broader issue of gun violence in the United States. In the documentary, Moore discusses gun culture, the accessibility of firearms, and how it affects communities nationwide.
Examination of Gun Culture
The first aspect on which Michael Moore focuses is gun culture. According to academic definitions, gun culture includes both the conscious and unconscious ways that people and organizations engage with firearms through their attitudes, behaviors, and projections of societal structures (Das et al. 2). The phrase gun culture, which was first used in 1970, refers to the distinctive American view that an individual’s right to own and bear arms is the best defense of their rights and the foundation of democracy (Das et al. 2). Laws such as assault weapon restrictions and stand-your-ground legislation have historically shaped a state’s pro-gun mentality (Das et al. 2). Therefore, such a kind of culture has been cultivated for generations, making it more complicated to bring changes.
From the beginning, the director grabs the audience’s attention, demonstrating a local commercial in one of the states. The author emphasizes that pro-gun sentiments have always been present, and it was even permissible to run commercials about rifles and other firearms in the 20th century (Moore). What is more disturbing is the fact that children were gifted with toy guns that were an imitation of a real firearm. As mentioned by the narrator, he “couldn’t wait to go outside and shoot up the neighborhood” (Moore 4:39). With such introductions, the audience becomes more acquainted with the local perceptions.
Besides demonstrating some of the mindset points of communities that seem harmless at first, the director brings attention to the gradual obsession of states with firearms. Charlton Heston, the political activist, came to Denver and held a major pro-gun demonstration only ten days after the Columbine High School shooting in opposition to the requests of the grieving town to enhance gun control (Moore). “I have only five words for you – from my cold, dead hands” (Moore35:16). In this case, by being exposed to an environment where guns were not seen as a threat but rather a luxury, communities stop considering the ethical issues associated with the matter.
Accessibility of Firearms
Moving forward, the issue of firearms accessibility is illuminated by the director. As narrated by Moore, “if you opened an account at North Country Bank, the bank would give you a gun” (Moore 2:00). When progressing further, one can see a brochure of the available guns. Here, one can explicitly see how a bank that conducts financial operations is permitted to be a licensed firearm dealer.
By experimenting, Moore attempted to determine whether he could obtain a gun, a process that was marked by errors and inefficiency. During the background check, only one person was present, and the customer was expected to fill out a form about their past experiences, such as being committed to a mental health institution, with no additional documents requested (Moore). Even the phrase “I am normally defective but not criminally” is not a concern for a bank employee (Moore 3:04). Readily available firearms underscore the system’s ineffectiveness, allowing anyone to acquire a gun.
Interviews with Criminals and Victims’ Families
Finally, one crucial element of the documentary, interviews with convicted individuals, residents, and survivors, gives a first-hand account of the drastic impact of poor gun control. For example, when having an interview with one of the local adolescents who knew Eric, one of the shooters of the Columbine School, the young man admitted that he was expelled. When asked what the reason was, he replied: “I had a run-in with a kid one time and I pulled a weapon on him, I pulled a gun on him” (Moore 15:36).
Another interviewee investigated after the Columbine School Shooting for conspiracy, admitted, “I have a thing, it’s called the Anarchist Cookbook, it shows you how to make bombs and stuff like that” (Moore 16:54). This demonstrates not only an easy access to information and a lack of accountability for one’s actions but the fact that younger generations become desensitized to risks of firearms.
A contrasting component of the documentary is recordings from the Columbine School Shooting, with the audience hearing and seeing the experiences of victims. There are original video and audio recordings of the students and teachers trying to escape the shooters. As one woman recalls while hiding with children under the tables in the lunchroom, “There’s some boy at Columbine High School, someone killed… He’s shot in the head” (Moore 30:46).
What is additionally devastating is the recording of victims’ families, with one of the parents saying on the phone, “I think we’re entitled to information as parents on where our children are!” (Moore 33:01). With these parts in the documentary, Michael Moore appeals to the emotions of the audience and demonstrates how a lack of regulation leads to continuous shootings and parents losing their children. By stressing that a lack of gun control and a lack of sympathy from legislators lead to the deaths of hundreds of people on an annual basis, the director urges society to take action.
The Impact of Gun Control on Youth Gun Violence
Reduction in Homicides
The impact of gun control on youth gun violence is immense and can be seen in the reduction in homicides. Currently, neither the ownership nor the purchase of a firearm requires a license under federal law. Nonetheless, there are four types of state licensing laws: licenses for the acquisition of firearms, licenses for their ownership, firearm safety certifications, and registration regulations that enforce licensing requirements (Iwundu et al. 307).
According to research done in urban counties in the United States with a population of over 200,000, permit-to-purchase legislation was linked to a 14% decrease in firearm-related homicides (Iwundu et al. 307). The required permit-to-buy rule that was enforced in Connecticut and made it unlawful to sell a handgun to someone without the necessary paperwork to purchase one was linked to a decrease in killings involving weapons (Iwundu et al. 307). In other words, even minor regulations. Such as the involvement of permits, can have a significant influence on the issue. At the same time, Missouri’s permit-to-purchase statute was removed in 2007, which contributed to a rise in gun-related killings and firearm suicides (Iwundu et al. 307). Such statistics prove that the avoidance of gun control can lead to homicides.
Additionally, other measures prove to be effective in terms of the reduction of mass murders. Research by Malta and colleagues emphasized the significance of voluntary gun-collecting programs in lowering firearm-related fatalities in Brazil. The decrease in firearm-related murders in the past ten years in São Paulo and suicide rates in Rio de Janeiro state could be linked to the distribution of firearms programs established by the Disarmament Act (Malta et al. 11).
Disarmament initiatives can lower violent crime because fewer guns equal less crime (Malta et al. 11). This claim is supported by Brazil’s experience of a decline in firearm-related fatalities and hospital admissions after passing gun control and prohibition legislation in 2003 (Malta et al. 11). In other words, limiting people’s access to firearms was capable of lowering some of Brazil’s violent crime rates, with this experience being crucial for other countries as well. Seeing the effects of the measures in other countries as well as the U.S., the latter can implement more rigorous policies to reduce mass murders.
Prevention of Suicides
Aside from homicides, the accessibility of firearms has an immense influence on suicide rates, which poses concerns. Between 1999 and 2017, America’s suicide rate rose by about 30% (Das et al. 1). Approximately 48,344 Americans took their own lives in 2018 (Das et al. 1). Suicide is still the tenth most common cause of death, with Non-Hispanic White people being the most affected (Das et al. 1). Males are more likely than females to die by suicide. In 2017, 69% of all suicides occurred in this demographic (Das et al. 1).
Compared to women, men select more deadly suicide techniques, such as using firearms (Das et al. 1). Such statistics demonstrate that the easy availability of weapons makes it risky for specific individuals, leading to attempts to take their lives or suicides. According to data from two sizable counties in Florida, 72% of firearm suicides included victims who had the right to bear arms (Iwundu et al. 308). Therefore, by simplifying the process of obtaining firearms, the policymakers enable easier access to weapons, facilitating suicides and homicides.
Addressing the Gap: The Importance of Comprehensive Gun Control
After reviewing the statistics connected to poor gun control and how more rigorous measures are required, several recommendations can be made to address the gap. It is highly likely that without many actions, the trend of homicides and suicides will continue to rise and develop, taking more lives than in other developed countries. Therefore, background checks, elimination of gun fairs, and restrictions on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) can be helpful.
Policy Recommendations
To lower the likelihood of guns ending up in the wrong hands, it is recommended that background checks be made mandatory for all gun transactions. This will help identify persons who have a history of criminal activity or mental health difficulties. Laws that prohibit those considered to be high-risk individuals from possessing firearms are rationalized around two key tenets (Zeoli et al. 119).
The first tenet is that observable behavioral risk indicators exist for predicting future violent acts (Zeoli et al. 119). For instance, those who are at a high risk of suicide frequently indicate their intention, which presents a chance for intervention (Zeoli et al. 119). Similarly, violence against others in the past can predict violence in the future (Zeoli et al. 119). Thus, charges for violent crimes, restraining orders imposed because of the possibility of violence, and threats of suicide may all be indicators of future violent behavior.
Moreover, one primary source of weapons that are illegally transported is unlicensed private sellers, who are connected to gun fairs, meaning that more comprehensive actions are required to limit such operations. Investigations at gun fairs are only required in states with global background check laws. As of 2018, eleven states still had universal criminal record check laws in effect (Gobaud 3). Furthermore, established interstate gun traffickers may obtain crime weapons through gun fairs as a middleman (Gobaud 3).
According to research, up to 30% of firearms used in crimes were previously sold at gun fairs (Gobaud 3). In the United States, it is illegal to sell firearms across state lines without a Federal Firearms License (Gobaud 3). Nevertheless, due to a lack of federal background check legislation, this gun show loophole raises the possibility that private sales could continue to be a significant conduit for the illegal transfer of firearms. Consequently, the risks of mass shootings can be projected only to grow.
Finally, with easy access to large-capacity magazines, some individuals will be capable of murdering more people, which necessitates the implementation of policies that put restrictions on the purchase of such ammunition. The reason why active shooters seek to purchase large-capacity magazines is that they can shoot more rounds at possible targets before pausing to refill their magazines or switch weapons (Klarevas 1754). There is evidence to suggest that victims hit by numerous bullets have a higher chance of dying (Klarevas 1754).
The reported deaths of people hit by multiple bullets were over 60% higher than those of victims wounded by only one bullet (Klarevas 1754). The likelihood that a shooter will kill their victims increases when they can hit human targets with multiple bullets. There was a total of 69 high-fatality shooting incidents that occurred between 1990 and 2017 (Klarevas 1754). Thus, it appears that LCM prohibitions can lower the frequency of high-fatality mass shootings as well as their death toll significantly.
As can be seen, the only approach to reducing the number of mass murders and suicides is to create a comprehensive set of policies that will make guns less accessible nationwide. With a lax system, any person is capable of obtaining a firearm without a proper background check that would assess their personal risks. Additionally, easy access to dangerous weapons that do not require frequent reloading increases the likelihood that more people will be affected. Finally, a lack of accountability and control in the context of gun fairs raises concerns due to the inability to track the individuals who purchase illegal weapons. More restrictions in this area, such as involvement or more licenses and background checks, can reduce the risks of homicides and suicides, making it more complicated to obtain guns.
Conclusion
In summary, regulations can lessen the number of killings and suicides even if there is a pervasive gun culture in the country and millions of individuals are growing numb to crimes and the dangers of lax gun control laws. Michael Moore’s 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine explores the broader problem of gun violence in the U.S. as well as the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. Moore addresses gun culture, gun availability, and its effects on communities across the country in the documentary.
The decrease in homicides is evidence of the enormous influence that gun control has had on juvenile gun violence. Observing how the actions affect other nations as well as the United States, the latter can enact stricter laws to lower the number of mass killings. Concerns should be raised because, in addition to homicides, the availability of firearms greatly influences the rate of suicide. They accomplish this by streamlining the application procedure. Upon examining the data regarding inadequate gun control and the need for more stringent measures, several suggestions can be made to close the gap. It can be beneficial to implement background checks, ban gun fairs, and regulate large-capacity magazines.
Works Cited
Moore, Michael, director. Bowling for Columbine. Alliance Atlantis, 2002.
Das, Abhery et al. “Permissiveness of Firearm Laws, Pro-Gun Culture, and Suicides by Firearm in the U.S., 2000-2016.” Public Health in Practice, vol. 2, 2021, pp.1-14.
Gobaud, Ariana N., et al. “Gun Shows and Universal Background Check Laws Across State Lines.” Preventive Medicine, vol. 165, 2022, pp. 1-18.
Iwundu, Chisom N., et al. “Firearm Violence in the United States: An Issue of the Highest Moral Order.” Public Health Ethics, vol. 15, no. 3, 2022, pp. 301-315.
Klarevas, Louis, et al. “The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass Shootings, 1990–2017.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 109, no. 12, 2019, pp. 1754-1761.
Malta, Deborah Carvalho, et al. “Association Between Firearms and Mortality in Brazil, 1990 to 2017: A Global Burden of Disease Brazil Study.” Population Health Metrics, vol. 18, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-14.
Zeoli, April M., et al. “Effectiveness of firearm restriction, background checks, and licensing laws in reducing gun violence.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 704, no. 1, 2023, pp. 118-136.