Any time an issue is boiled down to pure black vs. white something is being lost.Is a perfect example of sluffing off responsibility to others and assuming none of your own. Good for you. It's the same sort of "nuh uh" argument or "It ain't my fault" excuse that is worked to death when one small, tiny shred of personal responsibility could be taken at zero cost could prevent "the bad people who do bad things to good people" from having the ability and opportunity to DO those bad things.
It's an especially weak argument to make when you acknowledge that "bad people do bad things all the time...". How about if that gun you so proudly leave in your car gets stolen and used to kill your neighbor? Probable? No, maybe not...but possible? Yes, IF it's left in the car.
How about if you take 3 seconds to take it inside? The odds of it being stolen from your car drop to ZERO. But, of course...it wouldn't be your fault anyway because well...bad people and risks and excuses and blah blah blah
1. A person doesn't suddenly acquire the mindset of a murderer when they steal a gun. Pretending that the illegal acquisition of a gun (however easy) is going to be the key issue in the death of an innocent is a pretty significant oversimplification.
2. Different people are going to have different ideas about what is an acceptable amount of security for an unattended gun. I think we can all agree that leaving it in a store is negligent. I think we can all agree that locking it in a high-quality gun safe that is bolted to a concrete floor is responsible. Somewhere between those two extremes is where the line will be drawn, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone will draw it in exactly the same place. There are people out there who feel strongly that any unattended gun needs to be locked in a gun safe while others feel that having it in a locked house is sufficient. Others feel a locked car is sufficient. Others believe that a locked car is ok if there's an additional security measure such as a secure car safe that's bolted to the chassis.
3. Circumstances vary from person to person. Assuming that there are always "zero cost" alternatives to leaving a gun in a car is an oversimplification. There are certainly circumstances where there is no other option other than not carrying. Given the time, effort and money required to carry in some places, it's obvious that some folks feel that carrying is very important and therefore being forced to not carry wouldn't be "zero cost". My state actually has a law forcing employers to allow employees to keep guns in their locked car at work. Getting the law passed wasn't easy and the effort required to get it passed wasn't expended because people felt that not being able to carry a gun on the way to/from work was "zero cost".
Maybe we could try just a little harder to understand that our opinions are not everyone's opinions, nor are our procedures the only right way. That's the happiness and light version.
Here's the practical version: This is a discussion forum. It's for discussion. Jumping right from "I disagree" to "Everyone who doesn't do it like I do is negligent" is problematic in that context. There are some topics where that kind of harsh response is legitimate but the righteous rage response is definitely overworked.