Yeah, but he's about as electable as an actual red herring, so I don't see him as a viable threat.
A great rhetorical foil for his opposition and a godsend to propagandists, most certainly. A viable candidate for much of anything, I think not.
The best of political plans laid out to solve problems and save lives while respecting dangerous hobbies don't work if everyone constantly jumps to the extremes of the argument, relying on outliers, anecdotes, fringe positions, and the Slippery Slope Fallacy from both damn sides. Since that's principally what I see happening in the US on pretty much every issue, I'm just going to assume that we won't have meaningful change in my lifetime.
Plus, since there's no reliable data on the issue in the first place for the US and gun issues, where the hell would you start a well-thought-out policy to begin with? There's no uniform reporting requirements, statistics gathering, or other significant research to back either side because funding for it has been banned for 2 decades and more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment