39° Good Morning
39° Good Morning

Letters: Don't give mass killers big publicity

Let's face it, the First Amendment kills! It's not gun control we should be seeking, it's media control ["New bloodbath, same old debate," Opinion, Oct. 6].

It should be illegal to publish the name or photo of mass murderers, period. They get more airtime and publicity than the Kardashians! Give them the same anonymity they had for the rest of their lives, and I guarantee the United States wouldn't be the highest mass shooting range in the world.

You will never control guns. We need universal media cooperation for the sake of our country. It's not censorship, it sensible!

Lawrence Smith, Roslyn Harbor

Editor's note: The writer is an actor and producer.

It seems our great leaders haven't a clue as to any solution for curbing this outrageous, senseless killing.

As a person whose mind is not bogged down with so many worldly problems as our politicians -- one being how to consistently stay in power -- I believe the solution could be a national volunteer auxiliary undercover police. This corps could be made up of private citizens who offer their time and services at no cost, as some firefighters do.

They could carry a concealed firearm to be used only if faced with a situation where the police are not available to stop a crime. Volunteers could go through stringent mental and physical tests to qualify.

Local police would still have first priority to handle a crime. But I believe there would be thousands who would be willing to give their time for such a fine cause.

Avey Shaw, Huntington Station

Big concerns about driverless cars

As we see a greater emphasis on driverless vehicles, some interesting questions arise about the implementation of this technology ["Driverless cars? Let's take this slow," Opinion, Sept. 20].

Are driverless cars going to anticipate an accident as well as a human could? An example might be a ball rolling out into the street. We anticipate a child will follow and slow down or stop. If we see a jaywalker or someone approaching an intersection too quickly, we might surmise they will not be stopping, so we act accordingly to avoid a collision.

If there is no driver, who gets sued in the event of a death? Who pays the insurance? Who gets the speeding ticket? What if the vehicle malfunctions? Who is liable for the damages?

Ask yourself, do we need this technology en masse? I say no!

Lawrence Harkavy, St. James

Clinton can't avoid ethics questions

Joe Trippi's opinion piece, "No, pundits, Clinton is not collapsing" [Oct. 5], should have been titled, "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"

Hillary Rodham Clinton should also consider that for her campaign slogan. Americans are finally realizing that serious questions about ethics and judgment surround everything she's been involved in.

Her explanations for her lapses have been flimsy and inconsistent. Trippi is wrong when he says Clinton doesn't face much of a challenge. She does, and it's Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Jim Van Schaick, Baldwin

GOP must adjust its focus on issues

As a lifelong Republican, I wish to take issue with my party. I don't understand why it is making same-sex marriage and abortion major issues in the campaign platforms ["Fiorina stands by claims on Planned Parenthood video," News, Oct. 4]. Our country was founded on a separation between church and state. To me, this means that both above issues are private and individual ones.

The campaign issues should center on foreign policy, trade, immigration, creation of jobs, education, balancing the budget, Social Security and Medicare. Feeding, housing and supplying health care for all are other important topics.

Let individuals decide whether they support same-sex marriage and abortions. It is not the government's job to deal with these issues. If the Republican Party continues to do so, it is going to turn away many supporters.

Carol Spielberger, Syosset


We're revamping our Comments section. Learn more and share your input.