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

My Boys Like Shootouts. Whats Wrong With That? by Jonathan Turley (The Washington Post, 25 February 2007) discusses how parents are becoming increasingly against the assemble of toy- accelerators, and how such gun-paranoia will inhibit childrens development. Turley, a professor at George Washington University, speaks against those negative attitudes and hopes to educate parents and fellow traveller activists with regards to how toy weaponry contributes to childrens development and emotional progress. In general, Turley portrays the image of a concerned father plain disgruntled at attitudes encountered from his personal experiences. The tone adopted is casual and the authors use of examples serve to reinforce his ideas and arguments.Turley claims that the payment of gun play is not an idea which should be condemned and its impact exaggerated. He supports this claim by citing informants concerning this idea giving toy guns credit for channeling of aggression (2007, Para 7) and amp lifies the requisite to distinguish between the two with reference to play and violence (2007, Para 8). While Turleys sentiments do reflect some truth, this truth is belittled by the one-dimensionality of his discussion and lack of consideration of other concerns such as encouraging aggressive way and violent attitudes and reinforcing gender stereotypes (2007, Para 4).Part TwoTurleys arguments are logical but are discredit by their one-dimensionality as he does not accord sufficient discussion to other clever issues identified. There seems to be a lack of impartiality in the discussion as Turley is inclined to his experience ideas. For instance, Turley utilize an example from his personal experience relating to his efforts to avoid any gender stereotypes (2007, Para 5) which did not sustain his argument as he did not give depth to the point raised. Furthermore, the informal tone Turley used undermined the seriousness of the issue, and the example used was lacking as its scope cannot be reflective of an entire social issue. Hence, Turleys ideas, though valid, are weakened as he fails to present a just, two-sided argument.The examples cited in the condition succeed in substantiating Turleys arguments as they are quoted from several published sources with experience and the necessary expertise. These examples embody important ideas such as the use of toy weaponry as a form of purging for children to make meaning of what they have experienced in life (2007, Para 9) and to be able to nod off their anger through symbolic play (2007, Para 10). They withal demonstrate 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 essential of such play in childrens development. However, the impact may be contracted by his use of a casual tone in a matter of significance to his target audience.Turley clearly describes the importance of gun play in childrens development and explains that such play is acceptable as long as austere 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 covered by Turley may be too narrow.