Liverpool: Two Schoolgirls Fighting For Their Lives And Three Seriously Injured After Car Ploughs Into Group

Syl wrote:I don't know anything about applying for a firearms licences.

I imagine you have to have all your mental faculties and be able to see and hear clearly  in order to be licenced to carry a gun around legally.
If not maybe that should be reviewed too..

Syl wrote:Blimey.....and breathe.

I am not saying the elderly would lie and keep quiet about deteriorating health (though some might....just cos you are old doesn't mean you are honest)  but they may not be aware of their deteriorating health. (I am repeating myself now)

Do you think (for eg)  your own eyes can still see as well as they could 40 years ago?....well unless you are a walking miracle they cannot.

You seem to be taking this personally.....even throwing in the fact that your reflexes(at 61) were better than 99% of others who took the test.

I am older than you, I would not feel in the slightest put out if a law came in that forced me to retake a test....I would willingly do it and IF I was deemed unsafe to drive I would make alternative arrangements.

Cars are lethal weapons....I would rather be safe than sorry.  

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:A tragic accident is not the same as dangerous driving, and we don't know if it was a "tragic accident".

Well she has not been arrested Rags, which would be the case if they suspected her of dangerous driving,

Lord Foul wrote:

Syl wrote:I don't know anything about applying for a firearms licences.

I imagine you have to have all your mental faculties and be able to see and hear clearly  in order to be licenced to carry a gun around legally.
If not maybe that should be reviewed too..

as I said...it should be as HARD to get a car licence...

not only do you have to be medically and metally fit, you have to sign to allow the police acess to your medical records
no criminal background

strict rules about securing your gun
references are required
you have it renewed every 5 years, with a visit from the firearms officer
get more than a couple of speeding offences and you can lose your firearms licence...permanently
get done for drink driving and the same

get involved in a fracas and the same is likely...

new licencees can only shoot on land pre approved by the chief constable (equivalent to a new driver being restricted to say "B" roads)
new licencees are generally restricted as to what caliber they can have (equivalent to new drivers only being allowed say fiat 500 for the first 5 years)

NOW...all that makes good sense for firearms, and I'm all for it

BUT isnt it about time, realistically, that the SAME rules should apply to those who wish to use a 1 tonne guided missile???

Its really simple...

to get a firearms certificate, quite correctly YOU, as applicant, have to prove that you are a "fit and proper person"...and then you have to stay that way...

Syl wrote:Blimey.....and breathe.

I am not saying the elderly would lie and keep quiet about deteriorating health (though some might....just cos you are old doesn't mean you are honest)  but they may not be aware of their deteriorating health. (I am repeating myself now)

Do you think (for eg)  your own eyes can still see as well as they could 40 years ago?....well unless you are a walking miracle they cannot.
of course not...but you know...we have these marvelous things called glasses...though actually I dont need them for driving...only for close work...my arms arent long enough anymore
I have NO problems with my distance vision...I.E betont about the end of a car bonnet....

You seem to be taking this personally.....even throwing in the fact that your reflexes(at 61) were better than 99% of others who took the test.

I am older than you, I would not feel in the slightest put out if a law came in that forced me to retake a test....I would willingly do it and IF I was deemed unsafe to drive I would make alternative arrangements.

Cars are lethal weapons....I would rather be safe than sorry.  

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Blimey.....and breathe.

I am not saying the elderly would lie and keep quiet about deteriorating health (though some might....just cos you are old doesn't mean you are honest)  but they may not be aware of their deteriorating health. (I am repeating myself now)

Do you think (for eg)  your own eyes can still see as well as they could 40 years ago?....well unless you are a walking miracle they cannot.

You seem to be taking this personally.....even throwing in the fact that your reflexes(at 61) were better than 99% of others who took the test.

I am older than you, I would not feel in the slightest put out if a law came in that forced me to retake a test....I would willingly do it and IF I was deemed unsafe to drive I would make alternative arrangements.

Cars are lethal weapons....I would rather be safe than sorry.  

Yes you are laying a claim to this through a belief they will not be responsible enough to declare medical problems if they arise.
You are saying a test needs to be set in place and it would only be off this reason, where you would think they are not to be trusted to inform.
So now you further insult the elderly and say it does not mean they are not honest.
Which would apply to ever human of course, yet you wish to pick on the elderly as being deemed irresponsible, as that is the fear based methodology you are using to call for such a limit. As we know many can drive into their hundreds, as people age differently

Not taking his personally at all, just proving how your views lack any substance and are based off how you do infarct distrust the elderly to abide by the law. Again your view is to automatically place a classification  of disabled onto them. Based not on if and who would developed disabilities, but based off a view where you think at a certain age, no matter their health and fitness, they should be declared unfit to drive

Like I say your views are the following

Prejudiced
Ageist
Discriminatory
Guilt by association
Mistrust

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

as I said...it should be as HARD to get a car licence...

not only do you have to be medically and metally fit, you have to sign to allow the police acess to your medical records
no criminal background

strict rules about securing your gun
references are required
you have it renewed every 5 years, with a visit from the firearms officer
get more than a couple of speeding offences and you can lose your firearms licence...permanently
get done for drink driving and the same

get involved in a fracas and the same is likely...

new licencees can only shoot on land pre approved by the chief constable (equivalent to a new driver being restricted to say "B" roads)
new licencees are generally restricted as to what caliber they can have (equivalent to new drivers only being allowed say fiat 500 for the first 5 years)

NOW...all that makes good sense for firearms, and I'm all for it

BUT isnt it about time, realistically, that the SAME rules should apply to those who wish to use a 1 tonne guided missile???

Its really simple...

to get a firearms certificate, quite correctly YOU, as applicant, have to prove that you are a "fit and proper person"...and then you have to stay that way...

Well that's all I have been debating about on this thread re driving licenses.....not sure what all the fuss was about.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes you are laying a claim to this through a belief they will not be responsible enough to declare medical problems if they arise.
You are saying a test needs to be set in place and it would only be off this reason, where you would think they are not to be trusted to inform.
So now you further insult the elderly and say it does not mean they are not honest.
Which would apply to ever human of course, yet you wish to pick on the elderly as being deemed irresponsible, as that is the fear based methodology you are using to call for such a limit. As we know many can drive into their hundreds, as people age differently

Not taking his personally at all, just proving how your views lack any substance and are based off how you do infarct distrust the elderly to abide by the law. Again your view is to automatically place a classification  of disabled onto them. Based not on if and who would developed disabilities, but based off a view where you think at a certain age, no matter their health and fitness, they should be declared unfit to drive

Like I say your views are the following

Prejudiced
Ageist
Discriminatory
Guilt by association
Mistrust

You forgot..
Sensible and logical.

Lord Foul wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well that's all I have been debating about on this thread re driving licenses.....not sure what all the fuss was about.

conveniently avoiding the rest of it.....

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

conveniently avoiding the rest of it.....

Because obtaining a gun licence is not the same as obtaining a car licence.....start a new thread if you want to discuss gun laws.

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

conveniently avoiding the rest of it.....

Because obtaining a gun licence is not the same as obtaining a car licence.....start a new thread if you want to discuss gun laws.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

You forgot..
Sensible and logical.

lol how to you figure.

Show me how where you were Prejudiced, Ageist, Discriminatory, Guilt by association,Mistrust I listed was in anyway sensible or logical?

I always know when a person has debated poorly, the old throw in that thjs other poster is getting upset,
Its always a poor choice to deflect with

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


lol how to you figure.

Show me how where you were Prejudiced, Ageist, Discriminatory, Guilt by association,Mistrust I listed was in anyway sensible or logical?

I always know when a person has debated poorly, the old throw in that thjs other poster is getting upset,
Its always a poor choice to deflect with

I didn't say you were upset I said you seemed to be taking this personally....which to me you do.
Which then claims the other person is upset
take something personally. to get upset by the things other people say or do, because you think that their remarks or behaviour are directed at you in particular : 

You can call me all the above if you like...none of it's true though, I simply have a different way of thinking about this than you do.
I do believe it's sensible and logical to take a persons advanced age into consideration when driving is concerned, just as it's sensible to not allow a person under the age of 17 to drive...(I would raise that btw)

Lord Foul wrote:you do realise that a violent rapist can keep his driving licence???

Lord Foul wrote:all I can say is , Syl, if YOU wish to consider yourself a "past your sell by" "old fossil" thats up to you....

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:you do realise that a violent rapist can keep his driving licence???

Well that's something else that needs a law change.
Violent rapists should  be in jail ....which would obviously curtail their freedom to drive.
By the time they get out they would be old enough to have to reapply for their licence.....so we come full circle.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well that's something else that needs a law change.
Violent rapists should  be in jail ....which would obviously curtail their freedom to drive.
By the time they get out they would be old enough to have to reapply for their licence.....so we come full circle.

You  made some good posts here Syl and this one made me chuckle