But a truck owner has to have insurance to have a truck, because of the chance they will injure someone through driving, no matter how poor they may be. Why not the same thing for gun owners? If the gun company isn't responsible when the gun obviously made for killing is used to kill, and the gun user is more often then not totally without ability to be made to compensate the victim even assuming they survive, isn't this a case where insurance should come in?

At the very least you would then have some mechanism for preventing guns from getting into the hands of people who are likely to use them. Anyone could get a gun still, so long as they can convince anyone in the world else that allowing them to have it was a smart bet. It would heavily incentivize gun safety education and practices because just like drivers education courses the insurance companies would vastly prefer people who took them.

And before you tell me it would disproportionally affect the poor, then why do I never hear people making a stink about mandatory car insurance? It is easily the largest cost to me of owning a car as a poor guy, and yet no one seems to care. Or is my right to a gun higher than my right to drive freely down the road?