Ya know I've probably ranted about it before, but if the feds wouldn't have been prohibiting passengers from exercising their Right to Arms on Sept. 10th, then Sept. 11th would've been just another day & the NYC skyline would have been no different than the day before.

But if they 'let' us defend ourselves, then we wouldn't need 'them' now would we?

Not that i'm bitter or anything...

I tend to agree with you, except I honestly don't trust Joe American to have the sense not to shoot a hole in a jetliner at cruise altitude. This is one of those tricky gray areas in my mind. More sky marshals!

Yep, can't have cousin Vinnie shootin' in a pressurized cabin at 30,000 feet. The answer? Give everyone a butcher knife upon boarding.
Four hijackers with box cutters, meet 200 fellow-passengers with meat cleavers. Problem solved!

I don't have a problem with Joe American being armed. The fact that everyone else could be armed will probably deter any really stupid behavior. & even if a hole was shot in the airliner at cruise altitude it wouldn't be detrimental to the stability of the aircraft. It'd just scare a few passengers.
But assuming we had an extrodanarily high rate of stupid or malicious behavior by Joe Americn whilst he's packing on a plane & 10 people died a year as a result of violence on the plane itself, it'd take 300 years or so for it to be cost ineffecient when compared to what haeppened on September the 11th of 2001. Even at 100 deaths per year it'd take 30 years.
So I still see it as the benefits outweighing the potential risks.
Besides, the sky marshall program isn't doing so well. Neither is the armed pilots program. I think it has something to do with a lady in charge of the program, as I've heard the problems were because of Miss Management. :)