Such a poorly written article. The article was just as opinionated as I am on that first sentence.
My initial reaction to this article was that it was written by an “independent” person who is trying to provide an argument that supports and argues both political sides (republican side and democratic side). As i read more and more through the article I realized that the author was just opinionated and nothing else. Mr Kurtis Helena, the author of ” OP-ED: CT School Shooting” is not credible at all. Genre of this column was political.
I found many fallacies throughout the article. The first one was in the second paragraph where he uses example of banning vs not banning guns and comes up with a conclusion that doing both is wrong. Why? Only the author might know the answer because he does not support his logic with a reasonable argument. Secondly, he attacks drugs such as Prozac and Xanax. He also tells us that due to side effects such as suicidal thought, autistic people should not be given guns. In the next paragraph he argues why that logic might not necessarily be true and gives us his brother as an example. He then goes on to argue what semi automatic guns are and also argues that police officers are civilians. He also argues that mentally ill should neither be allowed to drive nor be allowed to vote.
Surprisingly, he doesn’t provide an evidence for any of his “Logic” (Helena) except for poorly given example and self concluded thoughts.
Helena, Kurtis. “OP-ED: CT School Shooting.” Examiner.com. 18 December 2012.Web. 22 April 2014.