Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? After yesterday’s horror of bomb blasts at the Boston Marathon it doesn’t really add anything to the issue of finding who the perpetrators of the atrocity were and ensuring they receive the appropriate punishment. It certainly wouldn’t support giving people the general right to carry bombs in civilian life subject to “appropriate” controls. Yet, of course, if you replace “bombs” with “guns”, there are still rather a lot of people who seem to think it an important distinction and an argument against restricting or prohibiting the use of guns. Even though the toll of deaths and injuries from the steady stream of gunmen going postal shadows the 3 dead and 140 seriously injured in Boston.