During the late 1900’s and early 2000’s, there was an extreme focus on gun control in the United States. Michael Moore, seemingly being an advocate for gun control, made a documentary that revolved around the Columbine High School shooting. In this film, Moore showcases how easy it is to get a firearm in some areas and interviews several people about the topic. The people range from everyday people, to known stars such as Marilyn Manson and Matt Stone. The documentary as a whole effectively makes the viewer question the gun policies in the United States and may tip their scale to be against guns. But how much credibility can actually be given to Michael Moore and his film? It’s easy to point a finger at firearms as the problem, but they do not have a conscience and cannot simply fire on their own. A firearm is merely a tool used to accomplish a task, just like a pencil, hammer, butter …show more content…
During the interviews that aren’t supporting the purpose of the film, you can see how Moore often interrupts and almost yells at the person he is interviewing. He asks questions that are farfetched and forces the person to agree that there should be control. He does this when he interviews the man that slept with a revolver under his pillow. From the beginning, we can see that the man isn’t mentally healthy. Moore then proceeds to ask something along the lines of “Should nuclear grade weaponry be in the hands of the people?” The man stutters and is forced to admit that they shouldn’t. Then Moore says, “So you do agree that there should be some form of control,” and then cuts off. The inclusion of actual security film from the school during the shooting plays on the emotions of the audience. Seeing such things will make a person want to make them stop. The easily blamed thing are the weapons being used. Therefore it makes the audience want to enforce gun