Saturday, April 6, 2013

Roger Ebert After the James Holmes - Aurora Colorado Shooting



Mediaite

Ebert first gave his thoughts on why Holmes did what he did and why he chose to do it at the premiere of The Dark Knight Rises.
“Like many whose misery is reflected in violence, he may simply have been drawn to a highly publicized event with a big crowd. In cynical terms, he was seeking a publicity tie-in…

“I’m not sure there is an easy link between movies and gun violence. I think the link is between the violence and the publicity. Those like James Holmes, who feel the need to arm themselves, may also feel a deep, inchoate insecurity and a need for validation. Whenever a tragedy like this takes place, it is assigned catchphrases and theme music, and the same fragmentary TV footage of the shooter is cycled again and again.

Somewhere in the night, among those watching, will be another angry, aggrieved loner who is uncoiling toward action. The cinematic prototype is Travis Bickle of “Taxi Driver.” I don’t know if James Holmes cared deeply about Batman. I suspect he cared deeply about seeing himself on the news.”
Ebert then questioned how someone like Holmes who was able to acquire “guns, ammunition and explosives.” He said that U.S. gun laws are “insane” and criticized the gun lobby while calling on Washington to use the opportunity to address gun control in a meaningful way.
“[T]he endless gun control debate will begin again, and the lobbyists of the National Rifle Association will go to work, and the op-ed thinkers will have their usual thoughts, and the right wing will issue alarms, and nothing will change. And there will be another mass murder…

“This would be an excellent time for our political parties to join together in calling for restrictions on the sale and possession of deadly weapons. That is unlikely, because the issue has become so closely linked to paranoid fantasies about a federal takeover of personal liberties that many politicians feel they cannot afford to advocate gun control.”
Read the full piece here.

3 comments:

  1. From the article, "... paranoid fantasies about a federal takeover of personal liberties ..."

    The National Defense Authorization Act is not a paranoid fantasy -- it is law. This "law" says that our federal government can capture and imprison U.S. citizens forever without an indictment, without notifying anyone, and without a jury trial. Basically our government can literally make any particular U.S. citizen disappear because a couple people in government do not like what that particular U.S. citizen is doing. This totally and completely violates almost every principle of the United States, including our right to a trial by a jury of our peers and our 4th Amendment right to due process.

    Journalists have already challenged a portion of the law in federal court. The entire law needs to be thrown out.

    Our U.S. Congress and President had no qualms throwing away our right to trial by jury. That is not a paranoid fantasy. It is a nightmarish fact.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Roger Ebert has no more authority on guns than Ricky or Robert or Ronan. Merely because Ebert was famous for one thing doesn't make him an oracle on all matters. Thus we have to consider the content of his argument, rather than taking his words as a pronouncement from on high.

    Regarding the content, it's the same old blather that we've seen here day after day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's just ignore the fact that he was on the same drug as Eric Harris at Columbine. Just ignore the common denominator that all these murderers are on dangerous Big Pharma drugs. I'm beginning to think all of you loonie gun control freaks are employed by Big Pharma or heavily invested in them. How else can you explain this blatant disregard of commonality.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete