That logic would seem to argue for less regulation than more! Manned aviation safety regulations come about after a major accident and a cause can be determined, NOT before because of some "what if" scenario. Currently we have ZERO major accidents involving commercial and hobbies drones out of MILLIONS of flights over the past few years. This is post 9/11 "preemptive" regulation that we have currently in regards to sUAS.
Just think where aviation would be today if in 1908 airplanes were banned from flying within 5 miles of any person or building because there just wasn't enough study on the safety of manned aircraft. If we are serious about safety we need to also acknowledge when a situation carries very little safety risk, such as a lightweight drone vs a heavy manned aircraft flying over persons or property. The fact that we don't have different weight classes for UAS points to the fact that it is just easier to say "NO" for the FAA. Whatever happened to the 2kg (4.4lbs) and below class of UAS that was proposed?
Your answer is a good one, but it's problematic. Please allow me to elaborate.
Like many other drone pilots, a huge problem I have with present FAA drone regulations is they completely lack logic and common sense. While I understand that no official studies have been done in the drone/fatality/injury/property damage field, it's pretty common knowledge that there are no drone fatalities. (Okay...I think in the entire history of RC aviation, there are < 5). It's also common knowledge that drone property damage is a fraction of its full-scale counterpart. And finally, injuries (non-fatal) due to multirotor crashes vs. full-scale aviation has no comparison. So, while I get that no "studies" have been conducted in the field of drone forensics, it's pretty easy to build a convincing safety argument in favor of drones vs. full-scale aviation with a laptop, a projector and about 30 minutes. But the frustration doesn't end there.
As impossible as it seems, it's not just the FAA who appear to be blind to the massive safety record gap between RC Aviation vs. full scale. There appears to be a whole gaggle of NON-FAA folks who don't get it or see it, either. I think I could easily make a case that if you're going to ban drones over residential, then it only makes sense to ban full-scale over residential, too, to just about any I.Q. demographic, age demographic, race demographic, etc. I would show a typical helicopter crash - not even a remarkable one - and assert, "This one crash caused 100x more damage than the entire history of model aviation combined." Seems like THAT would be a pretty easy case to win.
Now, remember...we're not talking about a drones potential for taking down a helicopter or airplane here (THAT is a study that needs to be done). We're talking about the POTENTIAL damage that can be done DIRECTLY by an electric 5 lb. drone vs. a 2-100 ton flying fuel tanker. One could almost remove ALL common sense and ALL logic, and STILL conclude that regulating the former out of residential areas, and not the latter, is about as cockamamie a safety imbalance as any history has ever seen.
The problem isn't just the FAA. It's the press, housewives, the average-Joe-citizen, and even the brand new drone pilot who got pummeled with a well-constructed propaganda campaign. I'm sure you agree.