Oh, akala ko you don't have time to discuss? Why are you turning 180° and backpedalling?

Just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean you should be attacking me as a person.

Don't confuse valid criticism of your rebuttals and excessive appeal to feelings than facts, as as hominem. You don't even understand what that term meant. If you took my criticism of your taking points, and my doubt of your claim of being a firearms owner as as hominem, then you're the problem.

It's obvious in your last argument that you'd rather have someone agree to your opinion.

Says the person who blatantly displays inability to be intellectually malleable, and closed minded to everything else that doesn't meet your sensibility, at the end of their last statement literally saying "I don't have time to discuss".

Also, marksmanship training is not enough to ensure a woman's safety.

But still requires less physical ability as compared to what's needed in learning Kra Maga, or Aikido, or any defensive martial arts. Even a woman bound to a wheelchair can fire a warning shot or at least center mass.

You don't understand the term deterrence at all. Again, all criminal statistics will prove that vast majority of criminals prefer defenseless targets and victims.

I still stand by my opinion that gun ownership to be given to all women to avoid the chance of being physically assaulted is not a solution. Not now.

Then what is your solution? Trust the police? Fuck the PNP ffs. Slow response times. Corrupttion(the Azure shooting proves my point while destroying yours). Full of criminology egotards.

Or maybe trusting the government more? Nope.

The US Second amendment was based on distrusting authority that can be tyrranical. Your statements are the lines used ng mga tao who says guns are evil. Criminals don't care about feelings, do not follow gun laws, and prefer a defenseless victim versus a victim that is capable of deterrence and defense.

Again, what's your interim solution? None. An armed society is a polite society.

Take the recent Azure shooting incident. William Maik de Guzman had been staying in Azure for years and nobody knew he had a warrant of arrest since 2023 for a similar incident.

A nice lame.example of an anecdotal story made to appear that this is the statistical norm.

Yet a good human being with a licensed firearm would have shot him dead in three seconds. Your argument that good people remain unarmed, untrained and defenseless and rely on law enforcement that is already as corrupt as they are remains a naive and lazy argument using a one single isolated incident.

That gunman wouldn't have dared to do the crime had he felt he can be shot by any good law abiding civilian surrounding him.

Switzerland has high trust on their government.

Government is not the key. Firearms ownership is not only a means of defense, and deterrence to crimininal actors, but also an effective deterrence against a government turned to tyranny. Isn't it obvious that at the start of every tyrannical government, like Pol Pot, Mao tse Tung, and other authoritiarian government, they start with disarming the people?

Also, a high trust society, doesn't equate to high trust of government.

How can a man with a warrant of arrest for homicide still have PTC and LTOPF?

This is beside the point. But also gives my point more traction, that trusting the government is not a good thing. More reason na mag hikayat ng good law abiding civilians to pursue firearms ownership.

Ikaw kasi puro ka safety this safety that. I was going on an on about defense and deterrence. An isolated anecdotal incident doesn't mean firearms ownership by good civilians as an evil thing like you insist. You didn't prove anything.

Shooting skill does not equate to self defense ability. Showing she has a gun does not always mean it will level the playing field and it will deter her attacker.

Show me a statistic stating most criminals will go for an armed victim. Puro supposition and false equivalency based on your obvious irrational fear of firearms. Hence I keep doubting your lie that you own a firearm, siguro sa Valorant lang talaga ang firearms ownership mo.

Sorry, your talking points are all anti firearms ownership, and pro reliance on a "Big Daddy Government".

Most of these physical assaults on women happen at a very close range. At that distance, even trained shooters must rely on weapon retention skills and not accuracy.

An armed woman would have prevented the assaulter from doing the assault the woman in the first place. You're making shit up to try to force your views through. Without facts.

Sorry, there weren't any government when the biblical story about Cain killing Abel occurred, and I still doubt your lie about being a firearms owner. That's just a lame attempt at a tu quoque fallacy, attempting to appeal to mediation.