We shouldn't be spending billions of dollars on a 60-year experiment for possible benefits that we can't quantify.
Certainly there are ways to measure if the air marshal program works as a deterrent. Even if there isn't, I'd argue we still need to axe the program, given the cost, abuse, risks, and lack of clear benefits.
Yes, reasonable measures must be adopted, and if none justifies the program, it makes sense not to continue it. I'm talking about the argument alone, it doesn't add anything
"May" is the keyword there. Also there may not be elephants in a city, while there may be terrorists on planes (I think some incident happened in the past, but I'm unsure). The conclusion is that it's unknown, and calls for a proper evaluation of the matter. The argument by itself is useless. Why are you using a seat belt to prevent mortal incidents, when there aren't mortal incidents with seat belts?
