NARGC warning 'shooting in fog'

Octopus

Latest from NARGC.ie

NEWSFLASH


MONDAY, JANUARY 25th 2010



SHOOTING ACCIDENTS

Members, for the love of all that is good, will you please DESIST FROM SHOOTING when there is poor visability, like the weekend just gone when we had fog throughout the length and breadth of the country.

As a consequence of poor visibility and what can only be described as raw negligence, our Association is this morning faced with several claims of persons having been shot. These are not minor injuries - people have been shot in the body and the eyes and it does not have to be spelled out to you the costs of claims of this nature.

The rule here is basic and simple. IF THERE IS FOG OR MIST GIVING POOR VISIBILITY CONDITIONS, STAY AT HOME AND DO NOT VENTURE OUT SHOOTING.

Octopus

An interesting thought as I re-read it. People have obviously been hurt yet the main concern seem's to be for the cost of the claims not the cost (physically) to the injured party.

jwshooter

the wording is terrible,dispire that its fair warning.

it would be like using a rifle and not seing the back stop.

lets hope the people are not seriously hurt.

cavan shooter

One of the tabloid papers (red tops) had a bit on it.

deeksofdoom

It would only take a couple of foggy weekends to clean out the compensation fund... who's going to pay for all those jollies then?

jwshooter

deeksofdoom wrote: »

It would only take a couple of foggy weekends to clean out the compensation fund... who's going to pay for all those jollies then?

insurance.

No6

You then add an extra 0 to your club membership fee!!! I didnt see this report anywhere has anyone got a link to the newspaper?? how many accidents were there who was shot with what?? why didn't it make the national news, anything else where a firearm seems to!!!

bunny shooter

No6 wrote: »

You then add an extra 0 to your club membership fee!!! ..................

IFA Countryside with as good as all the same benefits as NARGC is cheaper AFAIK

That old chestnut is not cutting ice anymore

Browning

Bunny Shooter hit the nail on the head. You see IFA Countryside cover is insurance cover. The Nargc "cover" is payment into a compensation fund. When the compensation in the fund is depleted due to guys doing silly things in the fog then the gravy becomes a lot thinner until the gravy runs out. Everthing is grand when theres plenty of gravy to go around as nobody notices the bits that spill over the sides. But the s**t will eventually hit the fan when a hole in the gravy boat is discovered and the gravy boat runs aground.:rolleyes:

dicky82

hmmmmm gravey,:D
i got my cover from the nargc, then as always a mate of mine reccomended the ifa after id parted with my euros. will be giving them my business next year i think.

jwshooter

Browning wrote: »

Bunny Shooter hit the nail on the head. You see IFA Countryside cover is insurance cover. The Nargc "cover" is payment into a compensation fund. When the compensation in the fund is depleted due to guys doing silly things in the fog then the gravy becomes a lot thinner until the gravy runs out. Everthing is grand when theres plenty of gravy to go around as nobody notices the bits that spill over the sides. But the s**t will eventually hit the fan when a hole in the gravy boat is discovered and the gravy boat runs aground.:rolleyes:

the nargc compensation fund in insured is it not

Browning

If thats the case then why are the NARGC getting there nicks in a twist about the € signs and not why is the primary concern not about members wellbeing. Seems like an after thought from reading that statement issue on the NARGC website. Why join a separate compensation fund and 3rd party liability insurance when all are available under the one insurance from other providers ?

deeksofdoom

jwshooter wrote: »

the nargc compensation fund in insured is it not

No its not that's the point I was trying to make, theres about €8million in it and when its gone its gone.

http://www.nargc.ie/site/about/compensation_fund.aspx

meathstevie

The complete idiots who went out shooting in dense fog should first all be dragged into their local Gardai stations, their licences torn up and their guns destroyed in their presence. Second, they should be disqualified for life from holding a firearm. Third, prosecutions should be seriously considered.

If you can't safely drive a car in it at more than about 40 mph because you can't see where you're going how do you expect to safely hurl (a) projectile(s) into the unknown at over 400mph ???

deeksofdoom

meathstevie wrote: »

The complete idiots who went out shooting in dense fog should first all be dragged into their local Gardai stations, their licences torn up and their guns destroyed in their presence. Second, they should be disqualified for life from holding a firearm. Third, prosecutions should be seriously considered.

If you can't safely drive a car in it at more than about 40 mph because you can't see where you're going how do you expect to safely hurl (a) projectile(s) into the unknown at over 400mph ???

True, I don't agree with the statements that the NARGC is more concerned with the cost rather than the injuries. These accidents are down to total carelessness, these people went out and fog and started blasting into the unknown. Sure enough they have paid their contributions and are entitled to get something back now as they are injured. But it could have been avoided.
Hopefully they'll make a full recovery.

cavan shooter

Was a guy not prosecuted in the UK a while back for a similiar shooting incident. (shooting times article)

yes some lads(stupid, lads) got hurt, yes the compensation fund is going to take a hit, but if you where the guy tasked with minding it wouldnt you be a bit annoyed that because of a stupid shower of so called shooters they have now gave it a substantial whack. Made us all look like reckless twits, It would appear to me that it was put up in haste and maybe written while seeing red.

This notion of "thats what I pay insurance for" is a bit annoying, yes the insurance is there if there is an accident to yourself and others but the insurance wont bail you out of of dung you could be in with the guards.

These lads acted recklessly and someone got hurt, this could be a prosecution in relation to reckless discharge of a firearm and no amount of insurance will protect you on that count.

Octopus

deeksofdoom wrote: »

No its not that's the point I was trying to make, theres about €8million in it and when its gone its gone.

http://www.nargc.ie/site/about/compensation_fund.aspx

As far as i'm aware the compensation fund is underwritten by an insurance company.

As far as comparing the IFA and NARGC funds the NARGC produced a nice one page comparison of it's cover V's IFA. They cover the same thing but the level of payments with the NARGC was much greater.

pedroeibar1

deeksofdoom wrote: »

No its not that's the point I was trying to make, theres about €8million in it and when its gone its gone.

http://www.nargc.ie/site/about/compensation_fund.aspx

Not quite. It would require eight accidents in excess of 1 million in one year to deplete the fund. For claims in excess of 1 million there is back-up protection from an excess of loss policy, which is a cost effective way of running the fund.

From link above - In practical terms this means that the Fund pays the initial excess sum of €1m for any serious claim occurring and after this, the EoL Policy cuts in to pay the balance up to €9m. However, since the inception of the EoL Policy some 12 years ago, its services have never been required.

I have my guns on my household policy which also provides liability cover; I also have a membership that provides liability cover. So, I have double insurance. Now, were I to cause an injury I wonder would the fund/insurers have a fight about who is liable? Jointly? House insurer before or after NARGC/CAI pays out?

Anyone looked into this?

P.

homerhop

had a conversation with one of the nargc brass when there was trouble a few years ago and was told if another insurance policy covered you, the nargc would not pay out.

spideog7

Ah now if you need the NARGC to tell you it hurts when you get shot, then you probably shouldn't have a licence in the first place. I don't think they need to waste their time saying "Lads I don't know what I'd do if anything happened to you, I'd be heartbroken".

It's worded not like an official announcement but more like a sigh of dispair, and who can blame them!!

pedroeibar1

homerhop wrote: »

had a conversation with one of the nargc brass when there was trouble a few years ago and was told if another insurance policy covered you, the nargc would not pay out.

If you're correct, that is a recipe for a disaster of nightmare proportions.
Most, if not all, household policies include liability cover. That means householders who are NARGC members are open to two indemnifiers (insurer & fund) in the event of an accident. Not sure that NARGC could walk away that easily, particularly if they did not tell you.

Would (could?) common sense not prevail and the fund/insurer share the cost of a payout? Otherwise what is the point of the NARGC fund?
Is CAI insurance (with AIG:eek: ) the same? (Must read the stuff they sent me.)

Sounds like a goldmine for the lawyers
P.

welsummer

meathstevie wrote: »

The complete idiots who went out shooting in dense fog should first all be dragged into their local Gardai stations, their licences torn up and their guns destroyed in their presence. Second, they should be disqualified for life from holding a firearm. Third, prosecutions should be seriously considered.

aagh jasus stevie, that was a bit over the top rant.
The problem is with the system in that there is no compulsery safety course before anybody is issued a gun licience.
the second problem is that common sence is not all that common

Browning

I recall hearing this before, that the compensation fund will not pay out if the loss is covered by any other insurance. As a compensation fund and not an insurance industry regulated insurance I would imagine there maybe items open to the interpretation of the fund managers that Joe subscriber is not quite upto speed with. No point then in running to the ombidsman looking for redress as the Compenation fund is a closed shop from their perspective.:D

Browning

BTW - Anyone who goes out with a firearm in the Fog and discharges the firearm should have their licence revoked amen. There is no excuse to be offered given the chance of causing harm to others, yourself, Livestock, property or all of the above.

bunny shooter

One of the principles of insurance is that you can't make a profit. As in you can't get paid twice or more for the same claim :rolleyes:

You can/should only claim from one source

pedroeibar1

bunny shooter wrote: »

One of the principles of insurance is that you can't make a profit. As in you can't get paid twice or more for the same claim :rolleyes:

You can/should only claim from one source

That is obvious to all (except to those who shoot into fog.) :rolleyes:
From the comments posted earlier it appears that each indemnifier would say that the other is liable and refuse to pay. Which means that the victim would have to sue the shooter who would then have to join the two indemnifiers in the proceedings.

As I said above,

Sounds like a goldmine for the lawyers

and a PITA for the guy who thought he had cover.
P.

marlin vs

No6 wrote: »

You then add an extra 0 to your club membership fee!!! I didnt see this report anywhere has anyone got a link to the newspaper?? how many accidents were there who was shot with what?? why didn't it make the national news, anything else where a firearm seems to!!!

I've searched for information on this and can't find anything.Has anyone got any information.

Dusty87

marlin vs wrote: »

I've searched for information on this and can't find anything.Has anyone got any information.

Bit in Mondays 'The Star'. I dont have it here but it was only the one story in it. On the side collum, only a small article. As far as i remember it just said he was shot in the leg and eye by stray pellets. Gardai are treating it as an accident blah blah. Il be in the home place later, il see is the paper still there.