Billy. Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 This isn't off the back of any news, so fear not I was talking about car insurance earlier and this crossed my mind... It is universally accepted that car insurance is a necessity; to protect you, your car, if you are injured in an accident etc etc. People are furious that there are uninsured drivers on the road, who are posing a huge risk to everyone, and even more angry if they are directly involved in an incident with an uninsured driver. Why, out of interest, is this not the same with firearms? Personally, I feel secure and happy knowing that I am insured and have a shooting body behind me. However, early on in my shooting life I'd laugh at the thought of paying for something like insurance... I know people will complain about it getting harder and harder to get into shooting, with barriers going up left, right and centre. However I would support the idea of people who intend to use firearms have a mandatory insurance requirement. Tin hat ready, but it's only a question! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Good question and I 100% agree with the idea. [can we force cyclists to have insurance too, and pay some road tax whilst we are on?] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libs Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 No. If you mess up then stand by. As you said we really do not need another mandatory form to fill in and bill to pay just to get out shooting. I have insurance. I think its stupid not to but I also love to think people are useing their own common sense with touchy issues like this. Even though our previous Government and the EU would have us all think we don't have any! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Not having Insurance whilst out shooting is just as bad as driving while un-insured in my opinion, & totally irresponsible. We have made it mandatory on our shoot, that anyone who's there on the day has to have it. All you have to do is join a shooting association & the insurance comes with it, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silpig5 Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 yep defo we should ! and if you are caught with ya gun with out it a suspension of licence or fine . hard to police but a responsible shooter would have no qualms about being legal and sensible. i.e. ricochet and broken window , or worse . but you would have to see the insurance company playing ball too , i.e no claims discount type of thing for experiance and such like . ?? adi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Kelly Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Typical British idea. We live in a country that over regulates and over nannies everything we do. The last thing anyone needs to do is start dreaming up new ways to get penalised by bureaucrats! As with all things, the responsible will do it anyway and those that don't care won't. The responsible will make some honest mistake and their insurance will lapse for a day or two, and they will be fined or worse, while the irresponsible will carry on regardless. Don't make another rod for your own back, the holdall's full enough already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MM Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 A lot of grey areas on this. Some people are already covered partialy by their buildings and contents cover or life cover, but you are not allowed to hold two policies or something. Baffles me! :blink: Should you be covered? Yes! Mandatory? No! Like said, should you have to pay to cycle to work The list goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 How would you ever enforce it or regulate it? It would just go down in the book with all the other unenforcable laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 In this litigious world we live in I wouldnt want to risk shooting without. All my farmers insist on it anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MM Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 So important he stressed it twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q West Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 The devil is in the detail, as with all things! Firstly, I think it is absolutely crazy for anyone to go shooting without insurance. These days, as has been said, it is almost guaranteed that if you injure someone or damage their property you are going to get sued. With the average shooting insurance claim knocking on the door of £10,000, it’s far too big a personal risk to take. You will also find increasingly, land lords insisting you are insured and insisting that your insurance also protects them. But look at it the other way, what if you were injured by someone else, who was not insured- how would you feel? How would it be enforced? Not too hard; after all the police have the current name and address of all who own firearms, so linking up with the insurance databases would not be too difficult they already do it for motor cars for example. I am sure they would find a way! But with compulsory insurance comes all sorts of other issues, and I would not be surprised to see compulsory testing coming in on the back of compulsory insurance as underwriters would undoubtedly want to limit their exposure. In short, everyone who goes shooting MUST be insured, but it should not be made a statutory requirement we, as shooters, should do the right thing, show we are responsible and capable of self regulation, because if we don’t you can be as sure as eggs is eggs someone will want to regulate for us! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Yes, of course it should be mandatory. It's so easy to trot out the same old arguments about over regulation, unenforcable, nanny state, jumping through hoops etc. etc. but now, more than ever, shooters need to be seen as responsible and safe with their shooting, and if that means taking out compulsary insurance then so be it. It doesn't have to be expensive, it's about £20 a year. Anything that makes the sport safer, especially in the eyes of the public, has to be a good thing. I'm surprised the shooting industry hasn't pushed for this already, as it won't be long before the anti's latch on to it and we start seeing the sensationalist headlines again. Much better we take a lead on things like this and start to self regulate our sport before being pushed into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tin Man Work Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Absolutely essential. Being a CA or BASC member provides enough cover for most people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I can't believe any of you out there thinks it's OK to shoot without any kind of insurance. As far as i am concerned it's a no brainer. But the answer is SIMPLE, just join one of the many country sports organisations, then you get full insurance as a member as well as a host of other benefits. If you accidentally injured someone and you had no insurance, you could be financially crippled for the rest of your life, lose your house, lose your guns, maybe never shoot again, all for the sake of saving £1,00 per week. THINK ABOUT IT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I voted yes, absolutely everyone should be insured. However it is a double edged sword because as soon as something becomes mandatory then the price will go up. Look at car insurance, companies can basically charge what they like. You only get a deal with them if you beat them down or go somewhere else. Then look at life insurance, it is quite cheap in comparison and you are garanteed to die. Why is that? I appreciate that chances are you will have paid in a lot to the policy before you die but that is not garanteed. I have not had a car accident in the last 20 years but my insurance keeps going up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bignoel Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 i voted yes as because it only takes one stray shot or stray bullet and you would wish you had that insurance remember it only happens once to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MM Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Absolutely essential. Being a CA or BASC member provides enough cover for most people. Isnt it about time these Org's offered just insurance then? Not everyone want to be a member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Now, I am insured and would never dream of shooting without. However 30 odd years ago when I started shooting and a tin of air rifle pellets was the best part of my milk round money for the week - no chance. I see a lot of people on here who have been shooting for a long time advocating increased legislation or control of shooting in one form or another. Mandatory insurance and air rifle licensing being two examples. These things wouldn't affect most on here, as we are all mature, sensible grown ups and experienced shooters with a social conscience :blink: :unsure: but they would create barriers for young people wanting to enter the sport and would I'm afraid contribute to the death of shooting in the UK by poisoning it from the roots - i.e. the young shooters who are the life blood of the sport. How many of the mandatory insurance advocates on here had insurance when as nippers they first stalked a hedgerow with an old BSA Meteor or single barrel .410? Lets not forget where we come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougall Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Anyone shooting without insurance is a fool.All our syndicate are automatically included.No guests without insurance. Like all insurance it is a 'waste of money'....that is until a claim.. I would not let anyone shoot without it.If you're so rich you don't need it then pay anyway,if you are not you cannot afford to be without it.Simples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I am insured but it will only protect me from the financial aspect of an incident. It wont give somebody their eyes back or uncripple them but people seem to think that having it means that accidents are suddenly not a problem, cos they're covered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colster Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 I can't see it working. I have BASC cover and would use this as a "selling point" when approaching a potential new permission owner and would suggest any landowner demand it from anyone using a firearm or shotgun on their land but I don't see making it illegal not to have it improving things to any great degree. Look at the situation we currently find ourselves in: The large proportion of gun crime is committed with un-licensed weapons. I'm guessing they're not paid up BASC members either. Currently un-insured drivers account for a large amount of traffic accidents and it's already illegal to drive without insurance. David BASC sums it up: These days, as has been said, it is almost guaranteed that if you injure someone or damage their property you are going to get sued. With the average shooting insurance claim knocking on the door of £10,000, it’s far too big a personal risk to take. But look at it the other way, what if you were injured by someone else, who was not insured- how would you feel? This kind of suggests that we insure ourselves against the risk of being sued (because we would pay out if we screwed up) but we don't somehow expect anyone else to if we're on the receiving end. I'm all for insurance and I know any shooter that takes his hobby/sport/job seriously feels the same but the ones that don't have that attitude don't bother with insurance. Personally, I don't think making it compulsory would change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Mandatory insurance and air rifle licensing being two examples. These things wouldn't affect most on here, as we are all mature, sensible grown ups and experienced shooters with a social conscience :blink: :unsure: but they would create barriers for young people wanting to enter the sport and would I'm afraid contribute to the death of shooting in the UK by poisoning it from the roots - i.e. the young shooters who are the life blood of the sport. How many of the mandatory insurance advocates on here had insurance when as nippers they first stalked a hedgerow with an old BSA Meteor or single barrel .410? Lets not forget where we come from. I can't see either creating a barrier to those who are genuinely wanting to take up the sport. Not many hobbies/sports are cheap when starting out, what with equipment/membership costs etc. but licencing/insurance would certainly go some way to sorting those who are genuinely interested from the ones who just want to own a gun. You can always make the claim that most gun crime is committed by unlicenced guns, and indeed it is, so surely by regulating ourselves we are further distancing ourselves from the criminal element, and showing ourselves to be more responsible in protecting the legitimate use of firearms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) well insurance is a good idea but dont make it mandetory. as you will get what you have with car insurance. prices go thrugh the roof and you get less cover for yr £. have you looked on yr car insurance docs as i bet you pay moor than last year with less cover and higher exses payment if you have to make a clame. but they not tell you this on renewal .so if you make shooting ins mandetory you will get the same servise ,COS YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT THEY WILL RIP YOU OFF. Edited January 14, 2011 by fruitloop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 It's not the same as car insurance. The risks are different and cover is really only neccessary to cover a third party. As we are constantly being told shooting is a very safe sport so I doubt we'd see many claims anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.