Originally Posted by
IrishDoesntFlyNow
Your argument is a common fallacy called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". That means, "after this, therefore because of this".
There is absolutely no evidence that, since Richard Reid, TSA's shoe carnival (post hoc) has prevented more shoe bombs (ergo propter hoc).
On the other hand, as JS and others have repeatedly pointed out, there is more than ample evidence that every other country having NO shoe carnival has had NO airplanes blown out of the sky. Applying your logic, we could just as accurately conclude that NOT having a shoe carnival has prevented shoe bombs on aircraft.
There is absolutely no evidence that there is NOT a threat from shoes. The same could be said for the most common argument I get here:
Since Richard Reid, no one has brought down an airplane (post hoc), therefore there is no threat to aviation from shoes (ergo propter hoc). The argument works in all directions. The people on Reids flight got lucky, and took great steps to prevent him from carrying out the plan once they figured out what he was doing. You guys can keep posting, but I will keep telling you the same thing - Shoes are a viable threat, and the rules are what they are until we can come up with a better way to clear them.