than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhba64FEFdc
There's much to be said for originality.
One of the obvious things after 9/11 (at least to me) was that aircraft hijackings were now useless as a terrorist weapon. One of the lessons of 9/11 for airline passengers was "These people plan to kill us and don't care if they die. Fight back."
Over here there are limits to the indignities people will put up with.
I remember once, an official waved me over after the security check, showed me their newest trick: rubbing a special tissue on my shoe, then lighting it afire in a spectral analysis mcguffin of some sort. I came up clean.
That was seven or eight years ago, right after that dork tried to light up his sneakers mid-flight.
Here the objective is the most security that can be had, without sacrifing too much of people's freedom and/or dignity and/or convenience. "too much" being subject to local variation.
But with the TSA the decision appears to have been left to officials trying to pre-empt getting blamed for the inevitable.
Stuff happens. Trying to positively pre-empt it is a recipe for afflucktion.
in the forest, killing someone who didn't hear it coming... who will have liability?
I don't see how the taxi company will have liability, unless shooting passengers is part of their policy, either as a rule of thumb, or as a rarer measure. Which it might be, of course, you didn't say. 
And, you will, no doubt, observe and compare such with the results realized.
Depends on the degree to which the results are deemed satisfactory by said wielder.
of the one wielding the might.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right
There are some simple anti-terrorist counter measures that would make the whole most TSA operation not needed. The main concern is someone taking over an aircraft, then make that impossible.
Call all commercial aircraft in for retrofitting of new arrangements while passing laws to change how new ones are built.
1. In all aircraft have the cockpit include a toilet and a small area for drinks and food.
1.a. In new aircraft have the cockpit designed for the flight crew to enter by a different exterior door and have no physical contact with the passengers and cabin crew possible. The wall between to be air tight and armoured.
1.b. In older craft retrofit with armour plate on the wall between and replace the door with a high security lock door. Also construct a toilet and food area in the cockpit area. The pilots are locked in by ground crew before the plane loads, and they get released after it's emptied.
2. The pilots can talk to the passengers and crew by making announcements, but the cabin crew can not talk direct to the pilots. The only communication being to hit a button that triggers an alert saying there is an emergency and they must land at the nearest airport that will take them. Only options being one button for a medical emergency and one for any other type of emergency.
.................
This all means that no one can take a plane over in flight, thus eliminating the ability to hijack the plane. The TSA would still need to check luggage etc for bombs but taking control of the passenger area would do them no good at all. So the passengers only need the old style basic checks.
I don't expect this to happen as it puts a lot of the responsibility and expense back on the airline companies and in the corporate run USA the company owned Senators and Congressmen will never approve the companies having to pay to make their systems safe.
Has the TSA gone too far?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA55S20101111?ref=nf
Pilots being patted down? What's that all about? Don't many of them carry weapons, themselves? And if anyone was in an ideal position to destroy a plane, it would be the person in the cockpit!
Patting down children? Anyone else would be arrested!
I'm really tired of all these reactionary policies of the TSA.
Personally speaking, I quit flying years ago. I've taken quite a number of 600 mile trips, a couple of 750, a couple of 850, and one pushing 1,000, and I drove each time.