See, Germany in 1939 thought the exact same thing. So did Venezuela when they outlawed firearms. You can't take away something as basic and fundamental as protection on the idea that, "Pft! That'll never happen!" Especially when we have someone as ridiculous as Trump running our government. Having the odds in my favor is like saying, "Car air bags hurt people. I'm probably not ever going to be in an accident, and neither are you, so you shouldn't endanger the life of yourself or those in your cars by installing them." 

I kind of see what you're getting at as far as privilege vs right, but the idea of making it so that the government "allows" you to own a firearm is never going to fly. If it's a privilege, it can be taken away for no reason. That gives the government the power to outlaw it at their whim. America is a nation that was born from citizens fighting tyranny, meaning civilians with privately-owned firearms fighting against a government with military ordnance. That heritage is the reason behind the second amendment, and it's the number 1 reason that amendment will never be repealed.

Insurance is something that's out there, but it's not an insurance policy in the way that most insurance policies operate. Car insurance means that they will pay for the damage you incur in the case of an accident. Gun insurance would mean they would pay for the damage you incur in the case of your firearm causing damage- either to a person or property. 9/10 times that is only going to happen if you are committing a felony or protecting your life, in which case no insurance company is going to cover you if you are committing a felony, and if you are protecting your life or the life of those around you, no one should hold you liable for the damage you cause when you kill a perpetrator. The USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Association) offers concealed carry insurance, but that insurance doesn't give a fuck about the person you shoot- it's made to protect the person doing the shooting in the case of a justified shoot by offering legal representation and money to even pay for another firearm while yours is being held in police evidence. 

And a biometric trigger lock is a great thing. They're currently testing the technology. I wouldn't be against it, but I wouldn't want it to be mandatory. If I have a gun at home that I want to take the range and have my friends shoot, I'd like it to be able to be shot by everyone, not just me. I'm all for keeping guns in a biometric safe- I have one, and only my wife or I can open it, but making it so you have lock individual firearms is impractical for most gun owners. 

Then there's the scenario you've painted about someone being threatened to unlock their safe for someone else to use their gun... What are they doing the threatening with? A gun? Why would they need mine? A knife? What would stop me from opening my safe and grabbing my gun and killing them? And what's the fun of having a super kick-ass firearm that you spent way too much money on if you can't brag about it to your friends?

You see the incidents of bad people with guns more than good people with guns because A) Bad people create situations in which they use their guns, whereas good people react to them. B) the media doesn't cover incidents when guns save lives. Those don't have double-digit body counts, so they don't make the news. C) Good people that own guns that don't cause problems don't make the news. The bad does not out weigh the good, it just makes the news more often.

Just because a person owns a gun doesn't mean they know what the fuck they're doing with it, and that often results in negligent discharges and accidents. It would be really nice to make training more affordable, which could be easily doable if the government would subsidize it. You could hold community gun safety training classes at the local community center for free and do a hell of a lot of good for some otherwise ignorant people.