30 Days Gun Nation Analysis

1029 Words5 Pages
The documentary 30 Days: Gun Nation places a gun control activist from Massachusetts in Leesburg, Ohio to live with a gun enthusiast and his son. The gun control activist, Pia, came in with stereotypical preconceptions about the two. The primary focus of the documentary was Pia’s transition in feelings toward firearms. At times, this transition felt drastic to the point it seemed scripted. During her time, in Leesburg she was exposed to guns on a daily basis, took gun safety classes, and worked in a sporting goods store selling firearms. Due to the nature of the gun debate, if the roles were switched and the documentary was filmed in Massachusetts, there would be little to no change in the mindset of Ken and his son.
The experiment began with Pia having far left preconceptions about guns and gun owners. These views developed after a close friend of hers passed away due to gun violence. In her mind, guns were killing machines. She did not understand why anyone but soldiers and police need guns. As an advocate for gun control, she worked to make it harder to get a gun. In response to people having firearms for self defense, she responded by saying that they are paranoid. In regards to gun owners, she
…show more content…
I share some of the same preconceptions as Pia. I side towards the left on the issue of gun control; however, I have been slightly exposed to guns. Parts of my family are from rural Ohio and enjoy guns for sporting purposes. I have no problem with guns being used for recreational purposes. On the other hand, I do not see the need of being armed at all times as a source of protection. The likelihood of using a gun for self defense is less than using a gun to commit a crime. According to the Washington Post, “For every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime,” (Ingraham). With that being said, I believe that if we decrease the gun population, then we will decrease

More about 30 Days Gun Nation Analysis

Open Document