Category Archives: Uncategorized

CT Shooting Article Response-Melissa Torres

When I began reading the article immediately thought that this article was going to be opinion based. I constantly thought that some of the article seemed to contradict itself so, it lost some of my interest rather quickly. Kurtis Helena is the author of this article. Helena described that a person with autism would not be able to pull off a shooting rampage because they lack the focus it takes to do something like that in a single day (pg.3). After he stated this I started to become a little confused because then he goes on to describe that his brother who is autistic had the mental and physical capacity to operate a firearm although sound and look of it would have scared him (pg.3). His brother was also able to comprehend that he was not allowed to touch the firearm. My confusion was based on the authors use of sentence structure, more than often of the time his run on sentences or lack to delivering an organized thought allowed me to initially interpret this as his brother having the ability to comprehend that a gun was being categorized as “bad” but then he chooses to play with it otherwise. This author’s train of thought was every where it went from caring weapons, to politics, to autism, to dictatorship, to the banning of guns, then finally to drugs. His lack of caring out a single message caused him to not be a credible source. Therefore after reading the article i was able to make a distinction of the author’s creditablity based from his comments. For an example of an ad populum fallacy was created when the author noted  , “On the far right we have people arguing that if we had god in the classroom this wouldn’t have happened. On the left the say ban all guns (pg.1). This statement was an example of a ad populum fallecy  because it was comparing conservatives and liberals viewpoints through an emotional appeal. Another example of a fallacy would be a red herring fallacy was when he mentioned, ” There is way too much emphasis on saying ‘semi-automatic’ when describing the rifle that was originally found in the car….handguns were semi-automatic as well and had bigger bullets” (pg.2). Helena wanted to distract the audience to make us believe that he was creditable.  
Helena, Kurtis. “OP-ED: CT School Shooting.” Examiner.com. 18 December 2012.Web. 22 April 2014.fallecies 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CT shooting

Although I agree with some of the points that Helena makes, the way his argument is made lacks credibility.  It was quite obvious that this article wasn’t peer reviewed, or even spell checked. There were numerous logical fallacies combined with his bold bias that overall made his writing entertaining at best.

One point that I found to be very eye catching was Helena’s assumption that everybody that has a mental illness and is taking some type of medication is a danger to society. Helena says, “Are we going to continue to allow those on these meds to drive and vote given their mental instability?” The title of the article is
“CT School Shooting” but one of the conclusions which he reaches is that those individuals who are being treated for a mental illness should be stripped of their rights. Throughout Helena’s article he creates conclusions for various situations which he believes are all contributing factors towards shootings. His logic however is not very sound and doesn’t give the reader anything to grasp on as he or she attempts to read this article. 

Helena, Kurtis. “CT School Shooting.” Examiner. 18 Dec. 2012. Web.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CT shooting – Nabindra Guragain

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ct Shooting Arame Diebate

Just reading the first line I knew it was going to be an opinniated    article about the Sandy hook shooting.   Then the author just states that he has an opinion and I figured he would literally share it throughout his article.  I think he takes a jab at the democrats more than the republicans even though he does it in a subtle way by just saying where his loyalty lies.  He is refuting all types of solution that people have proposed and then goes on about autistic medication.   I am fundamentally bias here because I work and have worked with autistic children.  I have seen normal children .  Crimes are opportunities you take away the opportunity you likely diminish the potential of the crime.  I do agree about having administrators having guns in school which can be a plausible solutions because having guns in a classroom is dangerous too with children knowing where the gun is. I also agree with his theory that certain guns shouldn’t just be limited to the police  but I agree that guns that have high magazine and are automatic should be banned from purchase by regular Joes. I also disagree that banning guns is somewhat equal to banning cars that can speed because people don’t commit mass murders using their cars.

I really don’t think that the author in general is very credible. I think he is an independent writer for the examiner who is not affiliated to any news background.  He gives an opinion but I don’t see it as being very critical or logical at that.  He refuses to address the big elephant in the room but tries lightly to throw the blame all over.

Helena, Kurtis. “CT School Shooting.” Examiner. 18 Dec. 2012. Web.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Logical Fallacies

My initial reaction to this article is confusion. The author dances around quite a bit, and I’m not sure if he’s trying to say that drugs like Prozac are bad and shouldn’t be used or if he’s trying to make an argument about the reform of gun laws.

There were a number of fallacies scattered throughout this article. The first big one I find is in the first sentence of the 5th paragraph. The author commits the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in saying that there is a direct correlation between people who are on anti depressants and people who commit school shootings.

The second big fallacy that stands out to me is in paragraph nine. He talks about how having law enforcement act like a military is the last step towards a dictatorship. This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

I don’t think that this author is credible. There are a number of instances of incorrect information in the article.

 

Helena, Kurtis. “CT School Shooting.” Examiner. 18 Dec. 2012. Web.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CT Shooting Response – Isaiah West

As soon as I read the first word I knew that this would be an opinionated blog related post. The author, Kurtis Helana, starts off his article as if he is about to embark on a rant by saying “First off, what happened at Sandy Hook Elm. is just a horrible thing” (Helana). From this sentence I cannot gage how he will present his argument and I think that it is a weak topic sentence, because it did not captivate me in any way. I also did not believe this article to be scholarly because in his second paragraph he says: “…we have people arguing that if we had god in the classroom…”(Helana), God is not capitalized. How often does one forget to capitalize ‘God’? I believe a credited author would not make that mistake. The author’s argument is also weakened by his lack of variety with vocabulary. In the second paragraph he repeatedly states how things are ‘idiotic’ this makes his argument sound opinionated and untruthful. As it turns out, the author is just an opinionated writer that desires to rid the world of ignorance, according to Google. Therefore the author is not credible.

 One of the major fallacies that I noticed was how the author tried to use his brother’s autism as a benchmark for most autistic people to act. He compared the actions of the shooter to his brother’s incapabilities to make those same decisions. Also, it was hard to discern what Helana’s main arguments were, he jumped around from topic to topic within this post. He started talking about guns, then spoke about drugs, and his autistic brother. Nothing in the body of this essay flows which makes his argument sound false. I knew the overall idea of this article, which was the Sandy Hook Elm shooting, but there were no clearly defined arguments I suppose the genre is blog post since it would not count for a scholarly source.

Work Cited

Helena, Kurtis. “OP-ED: CT School Shooting.” Examiner.com. 18 December 2012.Web. 23 April 2014.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CT School Shooting – Jason Martin

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized