Fighting crime or protecting borders would surely be more useful than confiscating nailfiles, even if the actual job is only one of paper pusher.
Boofhead:
Perhaps my post wasn't clear enough. 1) The US government is not reducing the number of border patrol, INS, etc. officers. They fully intend to replace any who leave. 2) The TSA armed security officers are not going be screening baggage. They won't be confiscating nailfiles -- that's what the screeners do, not the armed officers.
We already have an armed presence in all major airports. Right now, it is local city police or state police. In the future, part or all of those officers will be replaced by federal TSA officers. So it isn't a matter of whether we have armed officers in airports, it's a matter of WHICH officers we have in airports -- local or federal. Personally, I think it makes sense for all of the officers to be from one agency, with one standard of training.
We definitely need to have officers in airports. Their role is to deter and/or react to any groundside attack. Such attacks have happened in the past. The most recent was at LAX, but far more deadly attacks have occurred in Rome and Vienna (Dec. 1985).
I'm actually in favor of armed pilots, but that's an entirely different topic which has been previously argued ad nauseum here, so I won't argue the pros and cons of that.
But all good defenses are layered defenses. The final cockpit defenses (whether you prefer stronger doors and/or armed pilots) are simply the last layer. While that layer should, indeed, be stronger, that doesn't mean we should neglect any of the other layers, including groundside defences. Proper armed security grounside is one of those layers. In many European airports, it is not unusual to see officers their carrying submachine guns and/or assault rifles.
Regarding:
Later, it might be possible to give them coded small calibre pistols (can only be fired by the person who has the ID)
Such things pretty much exist only in the mind of gun control enthusiasts. The only practical device that I know that has been in quasi-production for some time is the Magna-trigger. The user wears magnetic rings on both hands. It has only been fitted into medium-framed revolvers and the company that makes it is a one-man shop.
http://www.tarnhelm.com
Major manufacturers now put various other stupid locking devices on their guns, most of which use some sort of key (S&W, H&K, Taurus). A key is simply a non-starter in an emergency situation -- you won't be able to find the key and fit the key into the small hole in time to use it. The H&K system, in fact, pretty much requires you to unload the gun to unlock it (since the locking device is inside the frame, accessed through the magazine well). A much better solution is a lock-box -- there are several that can be opened quickly in the event of an emergency. Those of us with such key locking devices simply unlock the gun with the key, lock the gun in the safe, and toss the key back into the box where it shall remain ever after.
Regarding "small caliber" pistols, sorry, but if you're going to be using a gun in such a situation, you want one that will reliably stop the attacker as quickly as possible with as few shots as possible. In other words, it should be one of the calibers commonly used by law enforcement today: 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 SIG, or .45 ACP.
The people who did the screening before the TSA came in were actually very good at what they did, since they had the experience needed to see what was a hazard and what was not.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree most strongly. The FAA tested the screeners periodically, using undercover officers to try to smuggle guns and explosives past the screeners. The FAA would actually warn the airport security beforehand that they were coming. And the screeners still missed 9 out of 10. Only time will tell whether the federal workers will do better than the private contractors. Personally, I think they will, but we'll see.