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
.@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?
To change your comments display name, click here.