Mandatory Shooting Insurance

[yankeedoodlepigeon]

I'm all for it, till you have a accident, been paying insurance for x number of years, have a accident insurance company says its your fault were not paying. thats insurance companys for you and if thats the case you will never go shooting again.

[Dunkield]

I think it is very good when a driven shoot has young, inexperienced, guns in the line and should be commended. By far the unsafest guns I have witnessed have been generally a: farmers, and b: old.

I know I have told this story before but the only time I was so frightened I felt sick was when a very old farmer passed his loaded SBS to me, barrels first while he climbed over a stile.

 

These are same old boys who can't be told anything because they have been shooting 50/60/70 years don't you know - yeah right..

[al4x]

I know I have told this story before but the only time I was so frightened I felt sick was when a very old farmer passed his loaded SBS to me, barrels first while he climbed over a stile.

 

These are same old boys who can't be told anything because they have been shooting 50/60/70 years don't you know - yeah right..

 

 

we have one, owns the estate gun is closed all the time, we think he is getting better at unloading it but you just don't know. Its slowly dying out as they pass on but it can't come soon enough

[David BASC]

You cannot depend on a farmer or land ower, or shoot having insurance that will cover you. they may well have insurance in place, but to protect THEM.

 

If you shoot somone or shoot their property, then its YOU that gets sued, you pulled the trigger.It may well be that the farmer / landower will also get sued by the third party,but so will you. And trust me insurance claims claims can get very expensive very quickly!

 

To be honest the vast majority of claims come from 'experienced' shooters not from newcommers. However, I would always want to see new shooters hone their skills at the local clay grond / clay club before they move on to shooting live quarry.

 

Off beating now - bye for now

 

David

[cowboy1403]

i voted no.i have insurance but that is my choice.if shooters were made to have insurance it wouldn`t take long for insurance companies to start imposing there own restrictions like with driving.

[CharlieT]

Yes, it's about time government got a grip on shooting sports and tightened up on a host of issues. I'm all for legislation that dictates what the population can and can not do.

 

For far to long those taking part in shooting sports have had a free reign to take up the sport without the need to seek governments approval.

 

I would strongly suggest that the time has come for every aspect of shooting to be controlled by government intervention. The current love afair with Codes of practise is not good enough, what we need is for things to be mandatory.

 

Personally I can not understand why we don't have.............

 

Compulsory insurance which would only be issued to those that have successfully obtained their annual £500 hunting license which would require the applicant to have completed and passed the relevant firearms training course levels 1 to 10 at £300 each with twice yearly refresher courses priced at £150 per module together with the specific species harvesting course. We have DSC for deer so why not the equivalent for every quarry species from mouse to fox and pig.

 

We should also adopt a much more responsible attitude to harvesting quarry species. I would suggest a "tag" system ,as per the USA model and the introduction of "seasons" for all species be they game or vermin. I this way government would have direct control on the numbers harvested and exactly how many days or hours a year one was permitted to shoot.

 

Come on BASC, get a grip and start lobbying government NOW.

[alastair0903]

Yes, it's about time government got a grip on shooting sports and tightened up on a host of issues. I'm all for legislation that dictates what the population can and can not do.

 

For far to long those taking part in shooting sports have had a free reign to take up the sport without the need to seek governments approval.

 

I would strongly suggest that the time has come for every aspect of shooting to be controlled by government intervention. The current love afair with Codes of practise is not good enough, what we need is for things to be mandatory.

 

Personally I can not understand why we don't have.............

 

Compulsory insurance which would only be issued to those that have successfully obtained their annual £500 hunting license which would require the applicant to have completed and passed the relevant firearms training course levels 1 to 10 at £300 each with twice yearly refresher courses priced at £150 per module together with the specific species harvesting course. We have DSC for deer so why not the equivalent for every quarry species from mouse to fox and pig.

 

We should also adopt a much more responsible attitude to harvesting quarry species. I would suggest a "tag" system ,as per the USA model and the introduction of "seasons" for all species be they game or vermin. I this way government would have direct control on the numbers harvested and exactly how many days or hours a year one was permitted to shoot.

 

Come on BASC, get a grip and start lobbying government NOW.

:blink:

[CharlieT]

I think it is very good when a driven shoot has young, inexperienced, guns in the line and should be commended. By far the unsafest guns I have witnessed have been generally a: farmers, and b: old.

 

 

Well as a 66 year old farmer it's a good job I advocate mandatory insurance and testing then.

 

Perhaps there should also be a mandatory age limit on gun ownership, say 40.

[poontang]

Well as a 66 year old farmer it's a good job I advocate mandatory insurance and testing then.

 

 

Do you?

Why would you do that?

[hodge911]

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?]

 

completely agree with apache on this but can jump on my shoebox and add my gripe .

we have a lot of "horsey" types round here especially the ones that use trotter carts they should not be allowed on public highways unless they have taken some kind of compitance test and have minimum of third part insurance as i.m.h.o.they are just as capable of causing an accident if not more than a motor vehicle .

one of the idiots on a trotter just decided to stop dead in front of me the other day and do a u,turn in the middle of the road and then look puzzled as i tapped the side of my head to gesture that he had performed a stupid manouvre.

these things really are a danger on the roads and should be used on private land only after being transported there in a horsebox/carrier.

rant over :o

Edited January 16, 2011 by hodge911

[mossy835]

Yes, it's about time government got a grip on shooting sports and tightened up on a host of issues. I'm all for legislation that dictates what the population can and can not do.

 

For far to long those taking part in shooting sports have had a free reign to take up the sport without the need to seek governments approval.

 

I would strongly suggest that the time has come for every aspect of shooting to be controlled by government intervention. The current love afair with Codes of practise is not good enough, what we need is for things to be mandatory.

 

Personally I can not understand why we don't have.............

 

Compulsory insurance which would only be issued to those that have successfully obtained their annual £500 hunting license which would require the applicant to have completed and passed the relevant firearms training course levels 1 to 10 at £300 each with twice yearly refresher courses priced at £150 per module together with the specific species harvesting course. We have DSC for deer so why not the equivalent for every quarry species from mouse to fox and pig.

 

We should also adopt a much more responsible attitude to harvesting quarry species. I would suggest a "tag" system ,as per the USA model and the introduction of "seasons" for all species be they game or vermin. I this way government would have direct control on the numbers harvested and exactly how many days or hours a year one was permitted to shoot.

 

Come on BASC, get a grip and start lobbying government NOW.

 

 

 

im not with hope dont get into the goverment.

[poontang]

im not with hope dont get into the goverment.

 

I think that post was 'tongue in cheek'

[CharlieT]

I think that post was 'tongue in cheek'

 

 

Thank God someone understands me !!

[kighill]

I have read several replies stating "cannot afford it"

 

Putting an old head on from previous experience!!!

 

BETTER TO HAVE AND NOT NEED, THAN NEED AND NOT HAVE.

 

You could also give thought that.

 

The person who can least afford it is the person who most needs it.

 

Ps (I need it)

[The Duncan]

...But look at it the other way, what if you were injured by someone else, who was not insured- how would you feel?...

 

 

I'd feel in the cupboard for the yellow pages to find a decent litigation lawyer and sue them forthwith.

I wouldn't shoot without public liability insurance, it really isn't worth the risk, especially given the small cost of cover (relative to other insurance - motor, home and contents etc).

I agree we have enough firearms laws and governances to obey, this should be left to the common sense of the individual.

 

Duncan

[The Duncan]

Not wanting to put David BASC's nose out of joint, but you get public and employers liability insurance up to £10m and other benefits for 28 quid (on offer, granted) through Countryside Alliance for 2011 (£56 for a full individual normal price). BASC have been known to run offer prices too.

If you can afford a couple of hundred carts, why cant you afford insurance?

A necessary umbrella I think.

 

Duncan

[Mr Potter]

The argument that making insurance compulsory i.e. by legislation is unenforceable and that because that it is unenforceable it shouldn't be made compulsory is a very peculiar argument and for peculiar read stupid!! No law is totally enforceable otherwise there would be no murders, rapes, speeding tickets et al.

 

I am firmly in the camp that is sick to the back teeth with the nanny state, well the nanny culture in general but this is somewhat different. We need to think not whether we are insured, cos as far as I can see all posters on this thread are insured but it's the person who accidental shoots us who I want to see insured. OK, I can (or worst case scenario, my widow) can sue the **** off them but when the Judge rules they stump up £20 or £20M and they are on the dole or on minimum wage he will probably allow them to pay at a fiver a week! Some use that is.

 

One way to try and ensure all gun owners are insured is to link the policy to your SGC or FAL in roughly the same way that Car Tax (RFL) is linked to motor insurance. When you obtain or renew your ticket you have to prove you are insured and when you renew (annually) the insurance either you or the insurance company inform your licensing authority. Assuming the National Firearm computer database is half decent it should be able to administer that?

 

There should also be room on the database to record the compulsory safety test. We quite rightly don't let people drive cars, fly aeroplanes, practice medicine, fit gas appliances in our houses etc, etc, etc without training and testing, should we allow people to use potentially lethal weapons without any form of examination. The remarkably low level of incident or accident involving firearms is a testament to the common sense of license holders but if you asked the family of the unfortunate guy who was shot dead recently in a pigeon hide by his mate if safety training should be compulsory I think we know what the answer would be.

 

My 2 pennies worth

 

Mr Potter

[webber]

I'd feel in the cupboard for the yellow pages to find a decent litigation lawyer and sue them forthwith.

I wouldn't shoot without public liability insurance, it really isn't worth the risk, especially given the small cost of cover (relative to other insurance - motor, home and contents etc).

I agree we have enough firearms laws and governances to obey, this should be left to the common sense of the individual.

 

Duncan

 

There is little point in suing a person who has few or no assets to realise.

 

webber

[chrispti]

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.

 

 

I agree, insurance is a very good idea but as has been said over and over, if you make it compulsary prices would rise and young shooters would be put off an already pricey past time - I know it would have put me off when I first started shooting.

 

 

:thumbs:

[mudpatten]

I think that compulsory insurance has the potential to become the salvation of shooting in this country.

 

It would be easily enforceable via a slight change in the law through the certification grant and issue process.

 

BASC currently offers the best shooting insurance but only has a membership of about 130,000.

 

There are some 2 million+ shooters (David BASC will confirm the actual number I`m sure.)in the UK.

 

So put the two together and we would have a shooting organisation with immense financial resources and real political clout not to mention a major presence in the land purchase arena which would dwarf the RSPB and other predatory non shooting groups.

[HW682]

The argument that making insurance compulsory i.e. by legislation is unenforceable and that because that it is unenforceable it shouldn't be made compulsory is a very peculiar argument and for peculiar read stupid!! No law is totally enforceable otherwise there would be no murders, rapes, speeding tickets et al.

 

I am firmly in the camp that is sick to the back teeth with the nanny state, well the nanny culture in general but this is somewhat different. We need to think not whether we are insured, cos as far as I can see all posters on this thread are insured but it's the person who accidental shoots us who I want to see insured. OK, I can (or worst case scenario, my widow) can sue the **** off them but when the Judge rules they stump up £20 or £20M and they are on the dole or on minimum wage he will probably allow them to pay at a fiver a week! Some use that is.

 

One way to try and ensure all gun owners are insured is to link the policy to your SGC or FAL in roughly the same way that Car Tax (RFL) is linked to motor insurance. When you obtain or renew your ticket you have to prove you are insured and when you renew (annually) the insurance either you or the insurance company inform your licensing authority. Assuming the National Firearm computer database is half decent it should be able to administer that?

 

There should also be room on the database to record the compulsory safety test. We quite rightly don't let people drive cars, fly aeroplanes, practice medicine, fit gas appliances in our houses etc, etc, etc without training and testing, should we allow people to use potentially lethal weapons without any form of examination. The remarkably low level of incident or accident involving firearms is a testament to the common sense of license holders but if you asked the family of the unfortunate guy who was shot dead recently in a pigeon hide by his mate if safety training should be compulsory I think we know what the answer would be.

 

My 2 pennies worth

 

Mr Potter

 

It isn't popular with the more paranoid members, but I agree with everything you have put.

[chrispti]

I think that compulsory insurance has the potential to become the salvation of shooting in this country.

 

It would be easily enforceable via a slight change in the law through the certification grant and issue process.

 

BASC currently offers the best shooting insurance but only has a membership of about 130,000.

 

There are some 2 million+ shooters (David BASC will confirm the actual number I`m sure.)in the UK.

 

So put the two together and we would have a shooting organisation with immense financial resources and real political clout not to mention a major presence in the land purchase arena which would dwarf the RSPB and other predatory non shooting groups.

 

 

Thats IF, the other cheaper organisations didnt tempt the majority with their low cost insurance.

 

Would clay only shooters have to have insurance?

[RC45]

Why would "Clay Only" shooter want exemption? Are they a special case?

[The Duncan]

There is little point in suing a person who has few or no assets to realise.

 

webber

 

It depends on why you are suing them. If it is just about money, you are probably right.

If its about a principle that ultimately won't penalise you financially for flagging someones bad deeds, then I couldn't agree with your point.

 

 

Duncan

[Mr Potter]

It depends on why you are suing them. If it is just about money, you are probably right.

If its about a principle that ultimately won't penalise you financially for flagging someones bad deeds, then I couldn't agree with your point.

 

 

Duncan

In the context of the thread/discussion I would imagine any suing was being done because the "guilty party" had hurt or damaged a person or property and wasn't covered by insurance.

 

Now call me cynical but i don't think if I was the "injured party" I would be suing for hurt feelings, loss of reputation or principle, it would be for financial compensation for the damaged property or loss of earnings or worse. For that I would want real money and you then go back to what Webber quite rightly said you can't get money out of someone who hasn't got any.

 

Mr Potter