I think it's fair to argue that Americans hold gun culture in a rather different light to the rest of the world. Of course, it is part of their Constution that they have the right to bear arms; their whole history has been cut and shaped by personal weaponry. It's very much part of their life.
Just look at what has been happening in Iraq. American soldiers were opening fire on vehicles that refused to stop at checkpoints. Children were killed. British military personnel said that they would let such vehicles through rather than open fire - 'it's just not worth it', said one spokesperson. American tanks had daubings on their hardware such as, 'this is for the NYPD', and 'this is for 9/11'. I saw one marine telling an Iraqi civilian protester that he was the one with the gun, so back off! Guns, guns, explosives, bombs and guns. Take that, punk! It's the culture and it's been fuelled by Hollywood. No one else in the world has such a pumped up belief in their own military and how capable it is of kicking arse. A military reputation created by Hollywood, and the army's own rhetoric, rather than by actual combat successes.
It's a unique culture, the American one; one we either admire or loathe. Either way it's contrived an end to a worldwide problem of airline terrorism, a uniquely American end.
Forget the movies. Have you actually been involved in a physical fight, or perhaps witnessed one? There's tremendous confusion. A surprise attack on anyone is likely to provoke momentary paralysis in the victim. There is always a shock factor that make 'surprise' attack so effective. That's why they are used!
The number one has just opened the flight deck door, he or she has a cup of coffee in one hand, a menu in the other, say. Passenger X on the front row rushes the door. Coffee spues forward, the pilot flays his arms as the hot liquid splashes him and the instruments. The no 1 falls on the the centre console, the first officer moves to catch her, let's say. There is shock and confusion for both pilots and for the no 1. But not for the hijacker. He is on control. He has so much time to subdue the pilots before they recover from the initial shock that it's slowtime for him. The pilots are barely aware of his being there. By the time the rest of the crew, or passengers react, the hijacker has at least one gun in his hand.
We in England - where guns are so low profile that regular police officers do not carry them - cannot understand the American decision to allow pilots to carry them. For their part, the Americans - living where guns are part of the legend - cannot understand our horror at this decision. But can we all agree that the money being used to train these pilots could be better spent at keeping potential hijackers off aircraft in the first place. If the hijacker doesn't have a gun, then I doubt he or she would be able to defend him or herself against todays post 9/11 passenger.
Come on guys, you're getting far to cocky for world peace to prevail. Democracy means accepting that there are countries whom are not going to subscribe to your American ideal - countries with 'anti-American views'. Learn to live with it; it could temper the terrorist hardline against you.