Not really. Auto insurance has provisions for damage to another auto (collision) and non-auto property. There are definitely provisions for personal injury, but that is not the main thrust of auto insurance. Clearly, its purpose is not to impede people from owning autos.
Now...a person like Lanza, were he insured by mandate for firearm ownership or usage, would have been liable for....?
A small amount of damage to the facility presumably caused by his firearms. But the main thrust of such a policy does NOT have recompense for property damage as its intended purpose. Deterring people from owning firearms is its intended purpose. And the underlying purpose that I believe no one here has hit upon is...a new database to register each and every "insured" firearm. No thanks.
And this “liability” insurance will certainly have the exact same type of provisions against injury to property and persons.
Furthermore, “risk” persons most certainly ARE deterred from auto ownership when their insurance rates are high / are unable to obtain insurance when no one will issue a policy.
I agree that the “intent” might well be different - it still changes nothing on the argument itself - in both cases, the government is placing a condition on a personal right. I don’t recall the clause in the Constitution which specifically granted that claim, but I’m sure our wonderful “conservative” justices can create one ...