Susie Madrak (or, more precisely, her son) came up with the best idea I've read all day--requiring gun owners to purchase insurance:
If they have risk factors (like teenagers in the house), their rates go up. If one of their kids sneaks a gun out of the house and gets caught, or uses it to commit a crime, the insurance gets canceled for some meaningful period of time -- say, 10 years.
And if someone steals your gun and you don't report it in a 24-hour window of you finding out, your insurance is suspended.
If you have a rifle and it's only used for hunting, low rates. If you have a Glock and you carry it in an open-carry town or state, your rates will be very high -- because odds are so much higher that innocent bystanders may get caught in a shootout.
Homeowners could be required to carry gun insurance as long as they're still paying on a mortgage, because a gun accident or misuse could result in a large legal judgment against the house.
Oh yeah, and you have to buy coverage for each gun you own.
We're required to buy car insurance, homeowner's insurance...if implemented sensibly, gun insurance could make a great deal of sense. Are there any counter-arguments?