It's effective at the theater aspect. To ask for more is, arguably, unreasonable.
I strongly suspect the average traveler or voter would be able to judge between what's good security and what isn't. I recall discussions such as arming flight crew immediately becoming political, overshadowing rational discourse.
Lifting the ban on guns/knives on an airplane is not going to make it safer to fly in a plane because "everyone will just pull out their guns and shoot the terrorist." What if the terrorist has a bomb strapped to him? What if he takes someone hostage? Just shoot through the hostage? What happens when a civilian decides they they are an expert marksman and tries to shoot the terrorist, but hits the hostage instead? Supposing that the terrorist was 'defeated' and everyone was safe, how would the legalities of that situation resolve? Is the person excused from killing an innocent because they were 'defending' their self?
Oh, and the scene in "Snakes on a Plane" where half the plane gets sucked out because of a few bullet holes is quite false.
The legalities work the same way they would on the ground.
Also have a trained pro sitting on the sidelines pulling out people he finds suspect.
At a later point, maybe you can replace the fancy looking stuff with equipment that actually does something.
Of course, I didn't know this until I arrived at my destination and unpacked my bag. The TSA screening completely missed it, even though it wasn't even remotely hidden.
I think it is time to take a review of the TSA procedures and start to dissassemble the security theatre they produce on a daily basis. Apart from the money and time wasted, it's also completely ineffective.