48% yes, 52% no.
I'm a pilot and I carry guns. No law against it - only problem is that the guns must be securely stored where you cannot reach them if a terrorist hijacker should attempt to commandeer your plane and crash it into a local landmark, killing thousands and taking billions out of the economy with associated job losses in the six figure range. [;)]
Personally, I think 50/50ish is a good result for Canadians.
Those opposed to allowing pilots to carry aren't very opposed - all you have to do to shoot 'em down is to ask for their interpretation on how terrorists who have commandeered a plane may be dealt with. Possible responses so far:
1) The US [and by extension all other countries that might be on the receiving end of this sort of thing in the future] deserved it (doesn't fly very well in polite conversation and neglects the personal plight of 7,000 folks who very probably did not deserve to die)
2) the unarmed untrained middle aged travelling public could rise up and lynch the fit, trained and suicidal terrorists (possible, but somehow I doubt antigunners have the balls to be first in line for that attack)
3) Spend much more money and equip every plane with air marshalls (I usually just point out that I don't feel that taxpayers should have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fund an alternate scheme to arm someone else on the same plane - instead of the very guy the passengers already trust with their lives).
4) Shoot 'em down with F-18s. (Take the example of Winnipeg. Plane takes off from Winnipeg, is hijacked and heads for the virology lab. Which area of Winnipeg do you intend to rain passengers, wreckage and jet fuel upon? A similar situation exists in many cities as airports are usually near cities. Besides, if I was a passenger and the gov't wouldn't allow me to carry, the pilot chose not to carry and my plane ended up getting shot down, I'd be just a little pissed off.)
I much prefer 5) Nail the idiots who brought knives to a gunfight.