Knee-jerk reactions are usually the result of emotionally-charged decision-making, not rational thinking.
Why create another problem trying to fix an existing one?
Issuing firearms may sound and feel as if it would make life more secure, but not at 35,000ft. Imagine what one stray shot through an aircraft window from a trigger-happy passenger would do. The sudden pressure change would lead to hypoxic conditions onboard, with everyone scrambling for their oxygen mask.
The alleged terrorist would be left alone to carry on.
No security there. Stun guns would be more appropriate.
The last hour of enforced seating means that the time available to any terrorist who may want to use the toilet for his/her misguided aims (no pun intended) is simple condensed into the balance of flight time before shutdown begins.
So the last hour will only mean that the detonated aircraft will not cause any collateral damage - meaning civilian lives lost - on the ground.
Therefore it logically follows the plane has a better chance of being blown up on the first, say, three hours of a four-hour flight. Somewhere over water.
I ask you, if my plane en route to NY next week is downed by some crazy guy over the Atlantic, will it mean that the current security measures will be deemed a success?
I have worked for over thirty years in security, and my opinion on this latest reaction is that of an ill-thought-out, politically-influenced action that does nothing to address the main problem - screening the passengers before they board, not after.
Short-term response to a long-term problem. No strategy.
Seadeuce