Few would dispute that Roger Ebert knows movies, but does he know anything about gun laws other that they are, in his opinion, “insane?”
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Ebert ponders why a public that is so well armed didn’t fire back at James Holmes as he allegedly fired upon a packed movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Roger Ebert makes a great point. If guns are for us to defend ourselves, why did nobody in the theater fire back? http://t.co/aIH4LRVf
— W. Blake Gray (@wblakegray) July 20, 2012
@ebertchicago You can't really knock no one shooting back in the theater when the theater prohibited legal guns. Bans only create victims.
— Joshua R. Poulson (@shirgall) July 20, 2012
https://twitter.com/SeanMcGee/status/226437345761705984
.@wblakegray as Ebert and you should no even with a CHL you are not allowed to carry in a theatre. So law abiding citizens would unarmed.
— Drew Hendricks (@drewhendricksms) July 20, 2012
@ebertchicago Maybe if someone in that theater had been armed, more people would be alive today.
— Jeff Householder (@Householder) July 20, 2012
Earlier in the day, before publishing his op-ed theorizing that Holmes was motivated not by movies but by a bid for publicity, Ebert had retweeted comedian Patton Oswalt’s entreaty not to publicize the shooter’s name.
Oh, and — PLEASE no one mention the shooter. Give him zilch. He took out of the world & put nothing in. A germ
with a gun.— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) July 20, 2012
Oddly, in arguing for restrictions on the sale and possession of deadly weapons, Ebert offers the following anecdote:
Roger Ebert (today's NYT):
“Why do you need to carry a gun?”
“I live in a dangerous neighborhood.”
“It would be safer if you moved.”— Sunil Maulik (@sunilm1) July 20, 2012
Does that mean it’s time for those who would prefer stricter gun control to move to another country? Or at the very least, out of Chicago?
