Well, I've never run across anyone who says "sensible gun reform" that isn't absolutely ridiculous, misinformed, ignorant on the subject of firearms, and the basic economic and psychological principles that apply. That still hasn't changed.

In case anyone reading this later still has doubts, I'll leave a couple follow up thoughts:

Driving a car is a privilege, not a constitutional right. You didn't answer what other rights you must carry insurance to exercise. How about the first? You must carry insurance before you write an article for a paper, comment on youtube, or post on reddit. Your words COULD BE libelous, defamatory, or misleading and we need to license and insure you before you can use your free speech rights. Or, how about the sixth? How about you don't get an attorney in a criminal trial unless you purchased private insurance to provide one before you were wrongly charged with a felony?

Earlier you said you supported licensing which would somehow be different than what exists today and I asked you to expand on that, but you didn't respond.

Earlier you said you supported "deeper" background checks and I asked you to expand on what this would cover beyond what exists today, but you did not respond to this.

You also earlier said there were differences between semi-auto and full auto and that "they are a common factor in a lot of these school shootings" then later say the differences are between revolvers/semi-auto and bolt or breech and semi-auto. Which is it? Semi or auto? What do you think the legality of fully automatic weapons is today?

I'll just sum this up with what is seems like to me is that any person who says "sensible gun reform", when asked to expand on what that is will proceed to list a bunch of ways to violate the 2nd amendment, penalize law abiding citizens, and put additional roadblocks in the way of gun owners.

Additionally, I'll defend my idea for a moment longer because it is defensible:

You disagree with immunity for good faith efforts to defend children in a school shooting? That's pretty ridiculous. I suppose the only other option is when a coach gets a baseball bat to counter ambush an attacker, you would support prosecuting them with having a deadly weapon on school property? If the coach hits the attacker and they survive, should the coach face lawsuits from this criminal who now has an injury and nothing but time on their hands in prison? You'd rather that coach not step up because they fear that they'll lose their job, their income, their ability to feed their family and be criminally prosecuted and civilly sued? Not me. I say if you're a coach with a baseball bat, you do what you have to do to protect those kids and don't you worry a bit about civil or criminal prosecution. You're good. And if you don't survive, the rest of the community will take care of your family for life.

Your "licensing and insurance" idea did not provide funding for payouts to heroes. You were just going to let the companies and government keep it. I suppose if you now support payouts, that's better that you've come a little my way, but we've got to get you away from putting monetary roadblocks in front of average citizens to exercise rights.

You asked how licensing school officials would be different. You do realize that schools are gun-free zones and even if you have a license for concealed carry, schools are strictly prohibited. 38 states have legal structures in place that allow school staff to carry. I'd like to see this become 50 and teachers adopt this option more (hopefully without fear of prosecution or civil suits should they ever need it). The laws differ from state to state, but in general, it's a concealed carry course with the additional requirement that you prove you have a valid reason to be at the school (e.g. are an employee) and the school knows you are armed.

You make it seem like I'm proposing to force all school staff to carry and there would have to be training for every principal, teacher, and janitor. That's not true. Only those who want to volunteer on their own time can go to the local police for the training and licensing course. This is typically part of the requirements in the 38 states that allow school staff to carry today. I encourage you to read up on this.

You say you have a problem with law enforcement getting a payout and guarantee that their family will be taken care of if they lose their life in a good faith attempt to protect children at a school during a mass shooting? Police have no duty to protect you or anyone else. I'm proposing literally the opposite of Uvalde. I propose removing all barriers possible to a rapid counter ambush. It's you that proposes to leave legal and financial hurdles in the way, not me.

You seem to also think that defensive gun use is not very effective. I'd encourage you to read the studies on that. While the definitions vary (do you include military, police, and armed security defensive gun uses? what about drawing but not firing? how do you account for those not reported to police or where reports were ultimately not filed?) studies show guns are far more likely to be used in defense than in any other method.