Game theory and guns: why universal background checks are a debate — and how to solve it

If you follow gun stuff, you’ve been hearing a lot about universal background checks. So let’s get the lay of the land. This article is especially for people who are roughly aware of the issue but don’t know the details of it, or the details of why it’s a debate at all.

And yeah, why is it a debate? The question “Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?” really does poll at 90% support. That’s surprising. You can’t get 90% of people to agree on a flavor of ice cream, let alone a gun law.

What’s going on here? There are three key questions to answer:

If universal background checks have 90% support, why haven’t they already become law?
Why does each side insist on a path that the other side genuinely believes is insane? Why does each side only try to win by force?
Is there a law that will give everyone what they want at the same time? What would that look like?
Let’s answer them one by one.

This entry was posted in Gun Control. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Game theory and guns: why universal background checks are a debate — and how to solve it

  1. WoodBurner says:

    Lots of what if’s out there.

    Time will tell.

  2. Mark R says:

    It is nothing more than universal gun registration, so they’ll know where all the guns are when they finally come for them.

    • FaCubeItches says:

      No need to “come” for them. Once you know who has the guns, you only need to send explosive drones to each owner’s home. And really, not even all of those. Just the ones they deem likely to possibly use them.

      • MadMarlin says:

        Cost to use drone/guided ordinance would be in the tens of trillions $. There are approximately 102(?) guns per 100 citizens in the United States. Killing all citizens who own guns would wipe out the entire US population. Oversimplified? Yes, but I also can’t see insurance companies signing off for every house and apartment building, and every person in the US to be eradicated. No more money to be made. Then again, maybe the drones will only target Deplorables and right of centric philosophy. Slim Pickens comes to mind at the end of “Dr. Strangelove”. Yeeha mfr’s!

  3. Bad_Brad says:

    If you want to see something interesting, go to Google and search “hitler and national gun registration”. The go to DuckDuckgo and do the same thing.

  4. Thanks for the link to that article. Too bad the anti-gun hoplophobes will never read it, and even if they did, the logic would be lost on them.

    I just thought of another fun part of the LIBTARD universal background check scheme….you would have to carry your “registration” paperwork for every gun in your possession at all times. Otherwise, how could you prove you were legally possessing the firearm in your hand/holster/case?

  5. stine says:

    I read that article, and I can say from personal experience that with the right load, you can stick a silencer on an AR-15 and if you aren’t paying attention when the trigger’s pulled, you might miss the shot.

  6. FaCubeItches says:

    “Why does each side insist on a path that the other side genuinely believes is insane? Why does each side only try to win by force?”

    Because not everything is negotiable to everybody. It’s like trying to cut a deal with someone intent on murdering you. Sure, *maybe* get them to agree to do it in a quicker or more painless method, but that’s still probably not an acceptable outcome for you.

  7. TwoDogs says:

    The system he proposes for “Swiss style universal background checks” would actually be better than what we have now with one addition – eliminate 4473’s. If you’ve already passed the gov’s background check, why would a gunstore need to record all that other info, particularly about the individual gun you are buying ? Getting SBR’s and suppressors off NFA might be a worthwhile trade. It’s a pretty well thought out, evenhanded article.

    • Not just No, but Hell NO! says:

      I take your car. I’ll trade your truck for the car. You’ll agree that is a pretty ‘worthwhile trade’.

      That sums up every compromise or ‘trade’ when it comes to firearms.

  8. Plankton67 says:

    Kenny, The term “Nash equillibrium” is in here, and it is a key concept to understand among readers as to why America is the way it is today.

  9. Butch says:

    It really doesn’t matter what the commies say they want to do with guns today. It is what they want to do about guns in total that is important. Communists want every gun picked up from law abiding citizens. The criminals with guns will be destroyed as will all the useful idiots of the commies like antifa. Read your history of any communist regime take-over. They know they cannot force anyone with guns into following their commie agenda. So they need to take every gun.

  10. Sanders says:

    Compromise means you give up something and THEY give up something. So far, the only ones giving up anything have been gun owners.

    As Lawdog said in his little screed – “I want my damn cake back!”

Play nice.