[GreenHornet]

What’s really frightening is that guns may become the least of our problems if they’re able to deploy other, more destructive types of weapons.

If only the 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns.....oh, wait a minute, they didn't use guns. If only the Tsaranev brothers didn't bring guns to the Boston Marathon....oh, wait a minute, they didn't use guns either.

[Starboard]

Good points that illustrate the fallacy of the gun control ‘solution’. Terrorists don’t need guns to wreak havoc. But even if they did, there will always be a ready supply of guns on the black market. Liberals live in fantasyland.

[pepsi_junkie]

If only the 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns.....oh, wait a minute, they didn't use guns. If only the Tsaranev brothers didn't bring guns to the Boston Marathon....oh, wait a minute, they didn't use guns either.

Well don't forget the one example of terrorism that wasnt a muslim, Oklahoma City. McVeigh and his assault rifle.... oh yeah, no guns there. Well what about Fort Hood, huh? Guns! So there. Oh wait, the government said that wasn't terrorism so it doesn't count.

So here's an interesting question. Of the major domestic terrorism act in the past 25 years in the USA, how many involved guns?

Here's my list:

• World Trade Center (First Attempt: Bomb, no guns
• Oklahoma City: Bomb, no guns
• World Trade Center (9/11): Airplanes, no guns
• Fort Hood: Guns but "workplace violence" so doesn't count
• San Bernardino: Guns
• Orlando: Guns

Obviously sarcastic about the OK City one. So based on the above, looks like guns were used in only half of the major domestic terrorism murders.