I am reading your Dec. 18 edition and can't believe that the editorial cartoon that appeared with the columns "Mobilize Connecticut's pain and make us safer" and "Revisiting a gun control lesson from Australia" would actually be printed. I am referring to the "Before NRA and After NRA" depicting a child playing hopscotch over a regular pattern and then numbered bodies.

To say that it is distasteful is an understatement. It seems to draw a picture that the National Rifle Association itself is responsible for the Connecticut incident.

Upon reading the columns I grew more upset about how "now" is the time to pass stricter gun control laws and ban "assault weapons." I would like to see individual lawmakers or the general public (without Google) describe an "assault weapon" since there is no clearly defined or commonly accepted definition. Many models of current hunting rifles would currently meet the prerequisites of "assault rifles" based on some of the terminology I have seen used in the past few days.

I love how the articles read "shooter used a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle." The average American is led to believe by the verbiage used that this is almost some kind of military-issue weapon. Semiautomatic is almost every weapon created nowadays (short of revolvers), but it's not clearly explained so it must mean it's some new weapon designed for terrorists and deranged psychopaths, right?

Assault rifle? Really? I know two old men who sat in my father's meadow shooting groundhogs (who destroyed our crops) with the same weapon for at least two weeks a year for a decade. Assault rifle? Really? I believe this is where the issue with the NRA comes from. The media and anti-gun activists don't like that the NRA can shed light and truth on the common misconceptions which are propagated to the American public as "facts" but are, in all reality, misguided opinions.

To assume that by making it impossible to legally obtain a personal firearm would in turn lower or decrease the risks of these shooting incidents is just asinine. If an individual is determined to carry out any heinous crime such as this, he will obtain a weapon — whether it is legally or illegally purchased. Should someone with a history of mental illness be allowed to purchase a weapon? No. Can the regulations be tighter? Yes.

Does this mean we need an all-out ban on certain weapons? No.

Cpl. John Buchanan

Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan

Launch new talks with N. Korea

Last week's North Korean rocket launch should have come as no surprise to the world. North Korean officials said they were going to do it and they did. By all accounts, it appears to have been a very crafty and successful launch.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is now a member of an elite club, making it only the 13th country in the world to have successfully launched a satellite into space by its own means — something that has remained elusive for the South Koreans. The United States is threatening more sanctions, The United Nations is wagging its finger, China is looking the other way, and Seoul is crying foul. Basically nothing has changed except for the fact North Korea is one step closer to producing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States and Kim Jong Un's status as the new supreme leader of the DPRK seems to be cemented.

The world was waiting to see if the young grandson of Kim Il Sung would be any different than his father, Kim Jong Il. Maybe he is, but how would we know? Who has engaged him in a conversation besides his father's old sushi chef?

Continuing to ignore the DPRK is foolish. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and wish the country away. Sanctions have not worked and new ones won't either. It is time to engage DPRK officials in dialogue lest we be surprised by their next development.

It is projected they may have between six and 12 nuclear bombs. It is just a matter of time before they miniaturize one and fit it onto a rocket.

It is very clear we do not understand this country, a country willing to starve its own people while spending millions on space research. From our perspective, they're crazy. If it walks like a duck, it's a duck. Or perhaps we just don't know what they want because we haven't had enough meaningful dialogue with them in the past six decades. Nothing we have done short of deterrence while maintaining an armistice over the last 60 years has brought any of the sides closer to peace. In fact, North Korea is more dangerous now than it ever was.

It is time for meaningful dialogue and reinvigorating the six-party talks. The U.S. has hinted at shifting its focus to the Pacific since actions in Iraq and now Afghanistan are winding down. China sees this as a U.S. containment strategy. Good. China now has everything to gain by reeling in the rogue DPRK, because the U.S. and our allies now have a perfectly viable excuse for an unfathomable presence in Northeast Asia, including a missile shield. War is expensive. Talk is cheap.

Gary Jones

U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan, South Korea

2025