The "insurance" the grabbers in this thread have been suggesting is nothing like the insurance I presently carry, in fact it isn't offered. They want a pool of money (paid by me, held by the gummint, I assume) that can be tapped to pay off people who are hurt or killed as a result of a thief stealing one of my weapons. Quite a different animal they call "insurance" to blur the lines of the discussion to cast gun owners in a bad light. That they use children as pawns in their crusade is the least surprising aspect of all this.
@LauraTXNM , a rough analogy to the sort of insurance I have in mind is PIP (Personal Injury Protection) insurance, which is a mandatory extension of car insurance in many states. It covers medical expenses and, in many cases, lost wages as the result of injuries suffered in a car accident. It is sometimes called "no-fault" because it is agnostic of who is at fault in the accident.
As applied to guns, the idea is for a gun owner to register and insure his guns, with the insurance available to pay the medical bills and lost wages of a victim of violence committed while using an insured gun. The insurance would pay off if the act of violence occurs while the gun is covered by the insurance - and such coverage would remain in force until such time as the gun's ownership is lawfully transferred, the gun is lawfully disposed of, or the gun is reported stolen to the police. The incentive is therefore in place for a gun owner to keep weapons secured from unauthorized use, to effect only "official" and traceable dispositions of the guns he owns (that is, not selling the thing out of the back of a truck but rather using a broker that upon resale will run the requisite background checks), and to promptly report stolen guns. Otherwise, his insurance policy will pay off and his premiums will go up.
The idea isn't to "cast gun owners in a bad light" or to make it too expensive for them to afford to defend themselves. Rather, the idea is to encourage gun owners to be responsible, to secure their guns against unauthorized use (like Adam Lanza taking his mom's guns), to effect only lawful transfers, and to report stolen weapons. Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?