Starting as of today I somehow feel that not insuring the stuff but carrying around the greater part of it most of the time is not exactly clever, on the other hand my budget is stretched as it is so I'm wondering if other people insure their "midrange" dslr gear against theft & damage or they consider the real world risk too low to pay for the insurance?
I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.
Insurance makes financial sense only if there are secondary considerations, i.e., if the insurance money you'd get would in the event be worth more to you than the actual amount you get. Travel insurance makes sense because in some places not having one might mean you won't be admitted to a hospital (or get the emergency helicopter ride or whatever). Insuring your house makes sense if a fire could otherwise drive you bankrupt. But it never pays to insure cheap stuff.
As far as photo gear is concerned, if you're a professional, making your living out of photography, insurance can mean you can replace the gear faster and thus lose less work opportunities, and then it might pay off. Especially if the insurance is tax-deductible.
But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.
Of course there again may be side-effects besides money. Maybe you know your wife wouldn't let you take a loan to replace the lens but would let you use the insurance money for it. Then insurance might again make sense.
Otherwise, you are paying for not having to do the math and for feeling a little less uncertain about the future. Maybe that feeling is worth the money to you. But it will
cost you money, not save it.