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.


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.

Oddly, in arguing for restrictions on the sale and possession of deadly weapons, Ebert offers the following anecdote:

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?