Agreed. [that the math doesn't scale this way] But the math
provides at least an inkling of what can be
expected unlike your "firecracker" analogy.

My analogy was intended as illustration, not proof. The math does not scale the way you purport so arguments based on it doing so are irrelevant.

To solve a problem, first the problem needs to be identified. I think we are identifying two different problems as if they are the same. Second, the goal needs to be agreed upon. I don't think we are talking about the same goal. Only then can the
course of action be evaluated. Instead, what is happening is that a course of action is taken. Based on this action, a goal is identified, and then that goal is made to look like it relates to something people might consider to be a problem.

The goal should be to stop terrorists from causing terror, especially by death and destruction, without handing over the very freedoms that make this country worth living in in the first place. To this end, my "diverting the discussion to
automobiles" is not a rhetorical tactic, but a way of pointing out the mismatch of goals. Restrictions on general aviation have very little impact on the ability of terrorists to cause terror. Threrefore it does not accomplish that goal. However,
it does accomplish the goal of restricting general aviation (which is the wrong goal in the first place).

When your house is made of straw, a bigger padlock doesn't really increase security. You said this is irrelevant; I say it is a perfect illustration of what I mean. If it is easy to come in through the window, a lock on the door (even if it had no
lock to begin with) does little good. If it is easy to cause terror with car bombs, it makes little sense to put a bigger lock on general aviation. It won't increase our security. The muscle needs to be put where it will do good while doing no (or
little enough) parasitic harm. General aviation is not such a place.

You even seem to agree with me:

The TSA ban you mention above is a feeble attempt to sterilize
the airspace in the vicinity of such events. But they've got to do
something to justify the billions of dollars in their budget. :-(

So I'm unsure what your point really is. What would you recommend? Or, more to the point,
1: What is the problem?
- 1a: Is it solvable? If so...
2: What is the goal of your solution? and then...
3: What is your proposed course of action?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address