A Critique: “My Boys Like Shootouts, What’s Wrong With That?”

My Boys Like Shootouts. Whats Wrong With That? by Jonathan Turley (The capital of the United States Post, 25 February 2007) discusses how p bents are becoming increasingly against the bunco of toy-guns, and how such(prenominal) gun-paranoia bequeath inhibit childrens development. Turley, a professor at George Washington University, speaks against those negative attitudes and hopes to get parents and fellow activists with regards to how toy ordnance contributes to childrens development and emotional progress. In general, Turley portrays the public figure of a concerned father seemingly disgruntled at attitudes encountered from his individualised experiences. The quality adopted is casual and the authors use of examples serve to reinforce his ideas and arguments.Turley claims that the valuation reserve of gun play is not an idea which should be condemned and its impact exaggerated. He supports this claim by citing references concerning this topic giving toy guns credit for chan neling of aggressiveness (2007, Para 7) and amplifies the requisite to distinguish between the two with reference to play and violence (2007, Para 8). While Turleys sentiments do reflect some fair play, this truth is belittled by the one-dimensionality of his discussion and lack of consideration of other concerns such as encouraging aggressive behavior and violent attitudes and reinforcing sex stereotypes (2007, Para 4).Part TwoTurleys arguments are logical but are discredited by their one-dimensionality as he does not abidance sufficient discussion to other pertinent issues identified. There seems to be a lack of impartiality in the discussion as Turley is inclined to his declare ideas. For instance, Turley used an example from his personal experience relating to his efforts to avoid any sexuality stereotypes (2007, Para 5) which did not strengthen his argument as he did not give depth to the point raised. Furthermore, the informal tone Turley used undermined the unassuming ness of the issue, and the example used was lacking as its scope cannot be pondering of an entire societal issue. Hence, Turleys ideas, though valid, are weakened as he fails to present a just, two-sided argument.The examples cited in the article succeed in substantiating Turleys arguments as they are quoted from several published sources with experience and the required expertise. These examples exemplify important ideas such as the use of toy weaponry as a form of catharsis for children to make meaning of what they swallow experienced in life (2007, Para 9) and to be able to trial their anger through symbolic play (2007, Para 10). They also butt on the existing need for a certain degree of change in mindset with regards to allowing gun play. In that sense, Turley has succeeded in delivering his message pertaining to the necessity of such play in childrens development. However, the impact may be contracted by his use of a casual tone in a yield of significance to his target a udience.Turley clearly describes the importance of gun play in childrens development and explains that such play is acceptable as long as strict guidelines (2007, Para 5) are imposed. He is considered to have achieved his intention as he cites useful and credible examples in substantiating his ideas. However, the casual tone adopted undermines the seriousness of the issue as despite it being a topic about play, it is one which parents and relevant groups view with significance. The lack of a balanced argument also weakens the ideas presented. Therefore, for an issue of societal scale, the scope cover by Turley may be too narrow.