I definitely noticed when the media mentioned tourniquets about the Boston bombing, too. I even saw mention of people using shoelaces!

Unlike 10-15 years ago, there were probably a number of police and EMS (and bystanders even) on scene at the finish line who are ex-military and who were actually trained to use tourniquets in the service within the last 10 years or so. Military medicine seems to have come around and now recognize tourniquets as a useful tool.

Then again, that's partly the history of a particular confict. Combine a conflict(s) where IED's and massive blast injuries are the weapon of choice, plus the evolution of more effective body armor where limbs are still relatively unprotected, and that seems to set up a scenario where severely mangled or even amputated limbs becomes a specific type of wound that medics and surgeons see a lot of.

Seems like amputations and near amputations would be a no-brainer for tourniquets. It's those other situations, like cutting an artery, where I can still see controversy. You'd hate to see someone lose a limb from tourniquet use when other measures could have stopped the bleeding and still saved the limb.

Boston does make me wonder, though--if someone decides to go to the trouble of packing a tourniquet, how many to pack? If gunshots are the primary risk envisioned, then one tourniquet is likely sufficient for a first aid or "blow out" kit. But if you're worrying about blast injuries, seems like having more than one might be prudent. The Army IFAK contains one tourniquet, but in actual use, I wonder how times a soldier ends up needing more than one?