Personally, people are far more absorbed in groupthink and following the crowd than they believe themselves to be. There is only black and white with most people, with shades of gray and someone supporting some policies of both major political parties to be some sort of unthinkable act of treason. These are the people who get spoon-fed information by mass media and talking heads on TV rather than going out, seeking it, seeking out the counterpoints and making a personal decision armed with that information.

There are candidates in this election that I support, and there are candidates that couldn't earn my support even if they granted my every last wish. Bernie Sanders is one of the former, and Hillary Clinton is one of the latter. Same political party; one that by all means I should be completely opposed to. However, what I am opposed to is the authoritarian 'us elite people who hold political power know what's good for you peons' mentality that surrounds Clinton, and what I do support is the 'we are all Americans here, we need to work together to improve our lot' mentality that surrounds Sanders. That's a basic summary of it, but when it comes down to it I'd vote for Sanders if I had a choice. I'll vote third party(most likely) or even Trump(holding my nose a bit, but vote just the same) instead of Clinton. Unfortunately, in this era of low-information voters the person who fights the dirtiest usually wins. I lay that blame at the feet of the mass media, whose 'sensationalism over summarizing' bent has basically distilled entire political ideologies and has made trying to sift through the noise of talking heads to find good, correct information very difficult. Until we get rid of the sensationalist mass media and eliminate lobbying we're going to find that prestigious political offices are going to be more often than not held by ethically bankrupt people who will more often than not compromise personal integrity to further their own interests. This goes for both major parties.

All that said, I'll be upfront and say I'm one of the people that looks at any attempt at firearm regulation with a major amount of skepticism. Especially since most of the laws passed in the past thirty years regulating firearms has been 'feel-good' legislation surrounding a major shooting incident that restricts the rights of responsible firearms owners while doing absolutely nothing with reducing crime. Bans don't work, plain and simple. Restricting magazine capacities and certain types of firearms because they look 'scary' is totally arbitrary and counterproductive. It alienates responsible firearm owners and makes them seem like soulless, unfeeling 'gun nuts' when they push back against the politicians using their freedoms as bargaining chips with the anti-gun lobby. That being said, I know you're a rational, level-headed person, so what do you think would actually work?

And, frankly, what you agree on with the dynamics in your relationship are really up to you and your partner. Nobody else. I get it at times as well, and that's incredibly aggravating as I'm completely uninterested in having a partner. I don't like sex, I don't wish to procreate, and to me owning, modifying, and maintaining rare sports cars is a more enjoyable and less stressful use of my time and resources than seeking a partner. However, there are people who feel they know you better than yourself, and the cycle continues. So, the most effective thing to do is walk away from them and let them babble their 'you should' and their 'you can't do this' to empty air. However, I say this at people who are too busy shouting opinions to realize that people have different preferences and that butting into someone's life to tell them that they're doing it wrong is incredibly insulting. :P

"Personally, people are far more absorbed in groupthink and following the crowd than they believe themselves to be."

Yup, the ones that believe they are immune from it are usually the ones that went all into the rabbit hole.

"Bans don't work, plain and simple."

I think that only a minority of people support an all out ban. Regulations do work though. Take Chicago for example, firearms flow into the city from the black market, but those firearms are typically swapping hands for about ten years before they make it into the city. Other cities with less restrictions have black market firearms that haven't been floating around the criminal world as long. The significance of this is that the supply of firearms has been diminished which has driven the price way up. If firearms there were more available they would be cheaper, more people would have them, and firearm related crimes would increase. There has been pointless legislation, as with anything being regulated, but that does not mean that all regulations fail and infringe on gun owners.

"...what do you think would actually work?"

Expanding background checks to private sales is one. While it is a slight inconvenience to people, it will help reduce the flow of firearms into the criminal world. The current problem is that anyone with a clean record can make straw man purchases and sell them to people who would not be able to legally buy one themselves. The initial purchaser can simply say that they made a private sale and they are off the hook. Having a paper trail would not prevent crime directly, but it would discourage these strawman purchases due to the liability having your name attached to a gun that was used in a crime.

Other regulations could be a requirement for properly securing firearms. A gun safe is heavy and costly, but the point is to make it difficult for anyone to just pick it up and walk off with it. It might sound like a pain in the ass, but why would anyone take a stand against properly securing a highly effective lethal weapon? This regulation would most likely be on the misdemeanor level meaning that it would only really be used to tack on another charge for a crime. Requiring a safe does not in any way infringe on the ownership of firearms.

There are other suggestions on possible regulations that may or may not work. I usually do not invest much time into this subject since it is remarkably difficult to find someone who takes a rational stance on this issue and actually knows what they are talking about. Most people throw out red herrings, non sequiturs, and other illogical arguments to derail the conversation and claim victory. Just check out the NRA page on FA to see what I am talking about. Be warned, it is filled with the paranoid types that think all liberals (in this case anyone who does not agree with them completely) want to ban every single type of firearm with the goal of imposing a totalitarian government which dictates all aspects of personal life.

"...I'm completely uninterested in having a partner."

I think that is called MGTOW (mig tau) [men going their own way]. It used to be a very generalized identity, but that too has a monocultural movement developing in it. By that I mean that there are a growing number of MGTOWs that try to rigidly define what the group is and what an actual follower does. You know, kinda like how there are furries who have a very narrow perspective of what the fandom is and anyone who doesn't fit is a lesser furry. It is the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

In any case, I think that if your way of life seems to fit you well then have at it. Some people are well suited for a single lifestyle and would be miserable with a partner. You only have one life, live it how you see fit.

I can see both sides of the issue. Firstly, you do have much higher rates of violent crime in major urban areas. Many(though not all) have some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, especially when it comes to handguns. While I definitely see what the cities are trying to do, primarily trying to stem the flow of weapons into those cities, there has to be a balance struck between allowing the average, law-abiding citizen access to firearms for sport and self-defense while keeping them out of the hands of criminals. The black market trade as well as theft are major sources of weapons to criminals, that much is obvious to anyone who really looks beyond the propaganda. That does mean the current background check system is working(at least keeping the average felon from walking in and purchasing a weapon legally). I'd go so far as to say that black market arms dealers should be dealt with harshly(minimum 20+ year sentence without parole up to potentially life if they were selling weapons linked to violent crimes). Additionally, I would support background checks for private sales but there also has to be a relatively easy to use system to put into place to do so. I also advocate safes; I have one that everything(except for what I keep out when I'm home for self defense) stays in without exception. Magazines, too. As you put it, it's not going to be easy to steal a 600lb safe.

However, I think the reason for high crime rates in major cities are in some part sociological. I don't think we were meant, psychologically, to have such large numbers of us packed into such a small area. You essentially have large numbers of people competing for limited resources, and those who can't obtain those resources(money, job opportunities, decent education, ability to start and grow a business, etc) turn to crime out of desperation... therefore perpetuating a cycle that lasts generations. I'm overgeneralizing and glossing over things, but that's what my opinion is. The same thing is happening on a global scale, but at the same time most of us forget that. I make a lower middle-class wage by US standards but am still part of the 1% cadre when you take global numbers into account. That's something I don't hear many people on either side of the political aisle mention.

One thing I don't quite agree with is the intentions of the vocal minority that actually want to ban firearms. While it's safe to say that most ardent 2A supporters would label, say, Bloomberg, Moore, O'Donnell, and Clinton(and to a lesser part Sanders) as totalitarian threats, I see this as a way to garner political favor. I think that most of these personalities don't really care too much about the issue insomuch as it's a moneymaker for them. Sensationalize the issue, aim for low-hanging fruit such as handguns and military-style semiautos, and watch the donations roll in from people who fell into the groupthink. Same thing on the pro-2A side... I've walked away from groups that constantly send out gloom and doom emails about the latest bill proposed somewhere, then asking for a generous donation to 'help fight it.' I understand that legal battles cost money, but political lobbying is a major stain on our political system no matter what it comes from.

I actually had to look up MGTOW. While I can see where many tenets to that apply to me, some of the more vocal supporters of that(at least on first glance) seem a little out of touch; perhaps borderline misogynistic or bitter about their lack of success in the dating arena that they pretty much ragequit(which I won't lie, that was me a while back). Those strike me as those who are marching in lockstep with that narrow definition you mentioned. While I'm disinterested in the dating/intimacy scene(especially as I get older, my sex drive is pretty much completely tanked) and would rather focus on material goals and my existing friends/family, there's lengths like the whole 'subsistence living' and 'total societal disconnect' concepts that I find personally laughable to apply to myself. However, it is interesting to see that there's enough people to feel this way to apparently necessitate a movement?

And, hell, it's good to have an intelligent discussion without wandering into areas where the kneejerk reactions, insults, and soundbite quotes pass for research and rational thinking.

This is why grey is my favorite color haha, because the world isn't so black and white.

Best reply ever, of all time. xD