Shannon Watts, founder of the anti-gun group “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America,” posted this tweet this morning asking if the “open carry” of firearms is legal in Ohio, then why were John Crawford and Tamir Rice shot by police for “open carrying toys”? The implication being that Crawford and Rice were properly handling what the police believed to be real guns when the two were shot:
#OpenCarry legal in #Ohio, but these Ohioans shot, killed for open carrying toys #TamirRice #JohnCrawford #gunsense pic.twitter.com/cBCkhYxs0j
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) December 17, 2014
The above was then re-tweeted by CNN’s Sally Kohn.
Enter National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke with some ‘splainer journalism:
@shannonrwatts @sallykohn Both of these shootings were disgraceful, but you need to be careful with terms. “Carry” doesn’t equal “brandish.”
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
@charlescwcooke @shannonrwatts the point is they were TOYS! and one of them was a KID! come on, how can you defend this?!??!
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) December 17, 2014
No, that wasn’t the point. At all:
@sallykohn @shannonrwatts I’m not. I literally said I wasn’t in my tweet. I’ve also written as much on NRO and the NYT. But you’re . . .
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
…Literally…
@sallykohn @shannonrwatts . . . making the wrong argument here. The problem was trigger happy and badly trained police, and, in the . . .
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
@sallykohn @shannonrwatts . . . case of Crawford, the 911 caller’s being a liar. But you can’t a) include brandishing under “carry” or . . .
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
@sallykohn @shannonrwatts b) presume that the cops knew they were dealing with toys. The disgrace was the way the calls were handled.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
@sallykohn @shannonrwatts Which is to say that Rice wasn’t “carrying,” he was “brandishing.” The mistake was never to find out *what*.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
@sallykohn @shannonrwatts Here is a good explanation of the difference: http://t.co/b074db4lNQ (Also, Rice can’t “carry,” as he was 12.)
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
@sallykohn @shannonrwatts Accuracy matters.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
Yes it does. Then Shannon Watts jumped back into the conversation:
@sallykohn @charlescwcooke How come the NRA blocks attempts to differentiate toy guns from real guns? http://t.co/Unkf1npZuP
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) December 17, 2014
@shannonrwatts @sallykohn I disagree with the NRA on this question.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
@shannonrwatts @sallykohn Although I also oppose that California law, which was ridiculous.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) December 17, 2014
@charlescwcooke @shannonrwatts thanks for clarifying — and for being willing to buck the NRA. ; )
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) December 17, 2014
But we’re not exactly sure what Kohn is thankful for. Is it that Cooked said he sometimes opposes the NRA or is it the more important part of this whole exchange where Cooke points out the false equivalency in the original tweet?
This is a pretty good example of a reasoned, sober debate that can be had on Twitter … but it remains to be seen if Cooke really changed anyone’s mind.
***
Related:
‘Kids will be Kids?’ What exactly does the St. Louis County PD mean with this tweet on Tamir Rice?
‘Feels so good when #GunSense wins!’ Moms Demand Action cheers new US surgeon general
‘Good for her’! Kroger manager gives Moms Demand Action the brush-off [photo]
‘Racist baking?’ Sally Kohn: Leaked Sony emails prove existence of bias elsewhere
Join the conversation as a VIP Member