I know how you feel, a ton of my family was massacred in adra in Syria for not complying with Islamic terrorists propped into place by the us government.
So, the answer, in your view, is: "substantive, gun-culture-changing new rules"
So, thus, in your view, the problem is "gun-culture". I'm not sure exactly what that is, but since guns have been a constant in US history since day one, and since guns are more highly proscribed and regulated now than at any time in US history, I can't logically conclude that it is the primary variable, if it's even relevant at all.
Fifty years ago, when semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines could be bought by mail order by anyone, no background checks at all and no age restrictions - we didn't have nutjobs committing massacres at schools. So...
However, you don't mention at all the issue of involuntary institutionalization for mental instability (or rather, the lack of it). This IS the relevant variable. The figure today is far lower than 50 years ago. Trying to prevent certain people from acquiring any sort of weapon is not viable, especially since any efforts to do so inevitably deprive non-dangerous people of their rights.
Another great reason to never have kids. All that worrying and freaking out sounds exhausting. No thanks!
The title contradicts the article, Leah. You provide examples of many changes taking place, locally. And those changes recognize the fact that at some point a deranged person may get his hands on a firearm and try and harm our kids. No matter what other laws we ever pass, we have to prepare for that possibility.
A couple of points of correction and clarification that give a more honest representation for debate:
"The Congressional stalemate meant even the passage of reasonable laws were stalled and eventually swept under the rug of the Capitol building." I will give you the fact that no laws were passed but reasonable depends on what side of the argument you are coming from.
"Last week, another school lockdown had a much different outcome. One student at a Colorado high school was critically injured when a lone gunman entered her school and began shooting. She was shot at point blank range. The gunman then turned his weapon on himself." He turned the weapon on himself when the armed school resource officer confronted him with her gun drawn.
It would be great to get guns out of the hands of crazy and criminal minded people but taking them away from law abiding and sane people at the same time is not the right way to do it.
My nephew came across this story while researching the death penalty. I hope this case gets reopened. KL
Amen Mr. Jah! And they still suck!
Typical libturds, histrionics, cries of racism, bullying, and zero tolerance for ANY ideas other than theirs. Facts and common sense vs. feelings, emotions, delusions, phoney science funded by big government.
"So, be careful. Cruise lines will pack up and abandon a port completely if that town makes it hard for them to be there."
By hard, meaning we make Carnival's brand of discount cattle drive tourism worth our city's while. Carnival needs Charleston more than we need them, and there is no compelling data demonstrating that the nuisance they represent outweighs the modest benefits.
Carnival would be wise to remember that this city is not a soft economy pushover, despite the fawning sycophants they deal with down at City Hall.
It's actually no big mystery about why this California boy would chime in on a Charleston issue. I'm a cruise ship enthusiast... having taken 20 cruises, mostly on Carnival. One of my Facebook friends posted a link to this article, and that's how I happened to notice it. My photo reflects my interest in Carnival cruises.
I am, in fact, currently staying in New Orleans for a few days prior to getting onboard a Carnival ship for another cruise. By the time I board the cruise ship, I will have spent approximately $800 in New Orleans between the hotel, restaurants, bars, taxis, etc. Obviously, not all 3000 passengers will spend that much locally before their cruise. Some will spend more, some far less. But between all 3000 passengers, there will be a significant amount spent. And this happens before each and every cruise all year long. So, that's a significant financial impact. Don't fool yourself in to thinking that because Carnival doesn't directly pay taxes to Charleston, that Carnival cruises don't bring tax dollars to Charleston.
My point about Galveston and Houston was that Carnival has LOTS of other options if they start feeling like Charleston is against them. So, be careful. Cruise lines will pack up and abandon a port completely if that town makes it hard for them to be there. Anyone who pays much attention to Carnival knows that they are continually re-evaluating where to put their ships. A few years ago, Carnival was big on Europe... and offered lots of sailings there. Now, zero. These days they are hot on Australia... after having success with positioning one ship there and now they are going to move another there. Five years ago, they were big on the Pacific Coast of Mexico... now, not so much. They'll move their ships somewhere else if you give them enough reason to. So, be careful about enacting severe regulations. Moderation is the key.
While Mr Zimmerlin (commenter above not to be confused with Zimmerman author of the guest opinion piece) above raises some valid issues and good points, I was intrigued to see a picture of him with what appears to be a mega cruise ship in the background. It appears Mr Zimmerlin per his own website lives in Grover Beach California and has made a name for himself taking photos and video of Carnival Cruise ships. Does not appear to be a part of the Charleston community as may be reflected in suggestion that cruise ships might seeking to replace Charleston with Houston or Galveston not exactly comparable replacements. From what I can see it is very odd that he is following something in the Charleston City Paper and posting. While he is right that cruise ships provide non-direct tax economic benefits too little regulation and protection of the beauty and history of Charleston will similarly doom Charleston in loss of other tourism and in the extreme loss of appeal to cruise ships as well. Development is a balancing act and I think piece nicely raises that extreme unconditional acceptance or rejection of cruise ships is unproductive and that perhaps the best approach is to focus of sustainable development that respects the competing needs of a historic city with large dependence on tourism and retirement attracted to the beauty of the city.
It's simply false to portray Carnival as un-regulated when it comes to environmental issues. They must follow a long host of US government regulations on this. You seem to suggest that Carnival is allowed to make toxic releases in to Charleston's waters... when in fact, not only are they prohibited from toxic releases, they are prohibited from dumping ANYTHING in to the water within your local waters. The ship has to be far out to sea before even the most innocuous release of fully treated water is allowed under federal law. Your local sewage treatment plants foul your local waters far more than a cruise ship ever will.
I totally agree that all cruise ships should plug in to shore power rather than burning diesel fuel in port to provide electricity for the ship's hotel services in port... and I hope I live to see the day when this is the standard method of operation for all ships. However, you have to understand that this requires expensive modifications both on the ship and also on shore. The cruise lines aren't just going to do that on their own... you're going to have to enact local or state regulations to force this, as has been done in California. You also have to realize that there is a risk, if you do enact legislation mandating this, that the cruise lines (all of them, not just Carnival) may decide that it makes more financial sense for them to cruise from other homeports where they are not bound by those regulations. For example, a state like Texas which is generally against most environmental regulations, won't require things like that... and so the cruise lines may just decide to forego Charleston in lieu of Galveston or Houston. That is the risk you take when you force the cruise lines in to expensive regulatory compliance.
You mention that Carnival doesn't pay any taxes to Charleston. What you are overlooking is the tremendous economic benefits that Carnival brings. 3000 passengers per ship per cruise spend an awful lot of money before and after a cruise in your area. The restaurants, hotels, taxis, gas stations etc. that benefit from those cruise passengers all pay local taxes. If you lean on Carnival too heavily and they decide to abandon your city altogether, you lose all that revenue that they help generate for you.
Carnival Cruise Lines Suck. The food sucks, the ships suck, the idiot activities suck. On a suck scale of 1-10 they have achieved maximum suckiness at 11. Ugh - floating Motel 6's, polluting as they chug along and all tax free. That really sucks.
I think the solution is to use Union Pier for what it was intended for and that is cargo. Now if you believe for one minute that the residents of downtown Charleston would welcome cargo ships at Union Pier and be any happier then I have some swamp land to sell you. The fact is these people won't ever be happy until Union Pier is developed with well appointed condominiums and stately walking parks that will not impede their views of the harbor and provide them a place to walk fido. Who are we kidding. These people are all elitist and have an expectation of what's best for the city as pertains to them!
Ms. Zimmerman proposes a legitimate question with this op-ed piece. The solutions, she and the Coastal Conservation League, wish to pursue are not going to be found by filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the cruise line. The change that they seek will be found in changing the law, rules and regulations by which the cruise industry operates. It is a well known fact that practically every major cruise line has a country outside of the boundaries of the US law and regulations listed as its 'home' country where it has established itself as a business entity. This is not merely a coincidence. Therefore, the CCL should directs its lobbying efforts to senators and state representatives if they wish to change the rules, regulations and law pertaining to the cruise industry.
Your back yard stephmcdonald!
Streetlaw, you are absolutely clueless. I suggest you do some homework. Carnival had a slight dip in profits, after treating passengers like crap, but rest assured, they have always made a nice profit.
I'm not sure the cruise industry would be interested in Charleston if we dropped passengers off elsewhere. What are the alternative locations you are referring to?
It is a matter of ethics or the lack there of and in some cases, arrogance and greed. Like CCP claims a certain circulation when trying to entice advertising dollars but really puts out tons of papers in racks around the lowcountry that no one ever reads. And the Post and Courier ignores laws against littering an blankets many neighborhood driveways with ad papers. As to the cruise industry, it really operates on a very narrow profit margin and takes all the breaks it can get. Often a cruise only makes money if a certain amount of money is spent on board. Of course the city of Charleston makes enough from passengers who come ashore to look the other way unless forced to do otherwise.
The Carnival Corporation benefits from the absence of regulation and goes as far as ignoring passenger safety in the interest of pursuing profits. There is no doubt that the cruise industry needs to abide by limits and standards. One such limit is that a cruise line not be allowed to board passengers and sail into a hurricane. On October 27, 2012, the Caribbean Princess, owned by Carnival, boarded passengers in Red Hook, Brooklyn and sailed into Hurricane Sandy. Voyage B 237 could not sail north, south or east and avoid the super storm. Passengers were given the cruel choice: Lose your money or risk your lives. Why was this allowed? For the same reason that Carnival's mega ships release toxic discharges into Charleston's air and waters -- because of lack of regulation. People who are thinking of booking a cruise should boycott ships owned by Carnival. Citizens should vote for candidates who are willing to enact laws to prevent abuses by cruise lines and cruise ships.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper