My initial impressions of the article were that it was very “interesting” at points, I use interesting for lack of a better word. In more than one sentence I had to stop, reread the line, and burst into laughter. For example when the author mentions military and law enforcemt. The only thing he was truly credible about was the part on the man being autistic, otherwise anyone who wants to invest five minutes could find out what he knew. The gene seemed to be a blog post to do with current events, while also supporting guns.
One fallacy I found was post hoc ergo propter hoc, the author used this often in the argument especially when talking about the medicines the shooter took. The author blamed the man’s ability to kill the people because of the drugs not taking into account anything else besides the side effects of the drugs. The author also uses ad populum, he used this when talking about the use of guns. He claimed that if we group law enforcement with military that “it’s one of the last steps towards dictatorship”. First that escalated quickly, second in what way would that happen?! The reason I think it is this fallacy is because he is appealing to the fact that no one wants a dictatorship.
Helena, Kurtis. “OP-ED: CT School Shooting.” Examiner.com. 18 December 2012.Web. 22 April 2014.