No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course. But it means that it is more likely that such an outcome could exist in the U.S. than, say, eliminating sadness or achieving immortality.
If by "more likely" you mean, say, there exists a 0.000001% chance it works instead of a 0.0001% chance, then sure: statistically it's more likely to happen. Kinda like how I'm more likely, statistically speaking, to win the Powerball once in my lifetime than I am to win the Powerball twice in my lifetime.
I mean, more likely, sure thing. In terms of actually happening? Not so much.
Why do you think that would be successful? Officers typically don't just take people's word that they aren't in possession of illegal items. That "boating accident" response is so implausible that law enforcement isn't going to accept it.
Now we're getting real. How much of the Constitution are you prepared to shred here?
Going to break into a house and search it to find guns & ammo as a part of your confiscation program? Or are you going to assert Probable Cause and get a warrant to do so? Note that to do that you have to have some evidence that there's a gun inside somebody's house.
What happens if the authorities say I have guns and they aren't there? Going to lock me up for the absence of evidence?
Or perhaps we're inventing charges now to jail people for not being enthusiastic participants? (We know that lying so-and-so has guns all over the place; but since we can't find them we're going to lock him up anyway.)
This is *not* a Slippery Slope argument (in case you want to go there). The mechanisms and the details of the left's dreams are very much relevant to the broader policy discussion.
To put a fine point on it: So you want to outlaw guns. And then what happens?
