I’m hearing this sort of objection from a lot of folks:

Jonah,
With all due respect I think you miss Tom Tancredo’s point. Yes, there is bomb-material control and yes, most gun control opponents overwhelmingly support such laws. However, the bombing in Bath Michigan surely proves that, like the war on drugs and all other well-intentioned attempts by the government to control what products are freely available to the populace, it rarely if ever prevents those determined individuals from obtaining the prohibited items anyway.

Or this:

You stated on the corner today:
“Fair enough, to a point. But this doesn’t strike me as a great argument. Explosives are heavily regulated and even most gun control opponents are for bomb control, right? “
Johna,
Well, not really… Most farm co-ops sell various flavors of explosives for tree removal and the such and then there is the simple task of making a batch. Humm, a little model airplane fuel (NitroMethane) a touch of finely ground ammonium nitrate or some FFg black powder. Not as well regulated as you might think. One of the largest mass murders in US history was the 1990 Happy land social club which killed 87, a gallon of gasoline and a Bic lighter. I guess we need tighter control on Bic lighters.

Me: Maybe I was unclear. I agree that would-be spree murderers will often find a way to kill people (though let us be honest that access to guns makes it easier for spree killers to kill. Just gun controllers should admit that gun control laws make it easier for them to get away with it).

But a gun control advocate is not going to respond to the fact that bombs can be used to kill people too by saying, “Oh, okay then, let’s keep guns legal and available.” Rather, he will respond, “Well, let’s make both harder to get.” And, last I checked, most defenders of gun rights aren’t in favor of liberalizing bomb-control laws.