My first initial reactions to the article was I thought the author knew what he was talking about and is giving an introduction to point out his argument. In the beginning I was intrigued by his statements, “On the far right we have people arguing that if we had god in the classroom this wouldn’t have happened and on the left side say ban all guns” (Helena). Due to the fact I took this notion as something I can agree on because I too feel like people who abides to those proposals seem rather irrational or illogical. Until I read a little further and come to the realization he appears to me as a man who does not have much credible words to be taken seriously.
Kurtis Helena throughout this speech genre related article tends to rant and spew information that seems humorous due to the lack of credibility. One of the fallacies I came across was he mentions the killer was autistic and was intoxicated with medical substances. He uses his brother as a supporting evidence in a comparison to the killer to justify it wasn’t due to the man’s autistic condition. This was a fallacy as his brother does not provide the facts needed to support his statement. Another fallacy that needs to be mentioned is his structure of the article. It was rather difficult to understand his points precisely as they tended to bounce around from autism, to guns, to law then to law enforcement. He has poorly, in my opinion, presented his argument about the CT school shooting.
Helena, Kurtis. “OP-ED: CT School Shooting.” Examiner.com. 18 December 2012.Web. 22 April 2014.