This assumption was not made by me.

"that I want to get rid of all the guns."

In actual fact I deliberately kept you out of the group being discussed in my comment with this question.

"Do you think now that liberals are going to agree with your solution?"

I didn't make this assumption.

"You've made another assumption, which is that anything that is a public good must be subsidized."

It is inherent in the proposed solution.

"Require that all guns be insured against causing wrongful harm."

Any cost benefit analysis require that the benefit and cost be determined to even decide if there is a benefit and thus a logical reason for paying the cost.

"subsidizing the state"

Theft cannot be used as a solution. That would be like shooting another person because someone wrongfully used a Gun. The truth is Gun owners are not willing to break the peace over taxes which is theft. Why would they break the peace for more theft. At some point one must realize that 95% of the wrongful death occurring because of the use of Guns is agency or government related. Why not tax the agents of the problem?

I up voted and commented because I liked and appreciated the idea. After looking closer I discovered problems with the idea. No criticism of you was intended.