There are three big categories of activities that result in deaths and injuries—vehicles, employment and gun ownership. In two of these there is general agreement that the at-risk public should be protected by insurance provided by those who engage in the activities. This results in both in financial benefits to offset some of the losses and in reduction of the harm. The harm reduction comes through insurer loss prevention strategies and in a societal commitment to a culture of responsibility.
Not so with guns. Gun violence produces a quantity of deaths about the same as those from vehicles and several times those from employment accidents. This is in spite of the fact that gun ownership is a much smaller part of the economy than employment or vehicle use.
Even more, most states recognize the need for public protection and provide for benefits to persons harmed when the responsible party cannot be identified or does not provide the required insurance. Contributions to an uninsured vehicle or employer fund in a state are generally required from insurers and ultimately paid by all drivers or employers. The uninsured tend to be less responsible and the cost is substantial when their numbers are significant. This provides an incentive for effective enforcement of the insurance requirement.