Say what you will about him, Roger Ebert has been my favorite movie critic for quite a while. (I’ve even forgiven him for his “thumbs down” on Gladiator – one of the infrequent occasions I found myself in violent disagreement with him). Anyway …
Ebert’s never been my favorite political/social critic. Matter of fact, the more he opines about matters non-cinematic, the less esteem he holds in my world.
For example, his impulsive speechifying about Friday’s atrocious “Theater 9 Shooting”. This barbaric travesty proves concealed carry-laws don’t work! he declaims. If they did, someone would have gunned down the perpetrator.
Embarrassingly for the film critic, he unleashed his analysis without knowing Cinemark Century Theaters are officially “gun-free zones”; i.e., firearms-toting customers are not welcomed in their establishments.
So, Ebert is, effectively, arguing: The fact that these folks, who were forbidden to defend themselves, didn’t defend themselves proves self-defense doesn’t work.
Perhaps he’s spent so much time immersed in the world of Hollywood fantasy, that his reality-evaluating abilities have been compromised? You read on at Breitbart.com and decide for yourself …
In the wake of over a dozen murders at a movie theater in Colorado, film critic Roger Ebert rushed to decry America’s “insane” gun laws in a New York Times op-ed. Within the piece, he pooh-poohed concealed carry laws by noting that no one in the theater shot back at the gunman. But Ebert misses an important point. The Cinemark theater chain has a “gun-free zone” policy.
In the NYT, Ebert chided America for allowing gun ownership for the common man […]