Gun Control & RKBA

sarisatak cites link: ......... This statement is intriguing: Long prison sentences for breaking into a car would be expensive and unfair, especially because there’s no serious penalty for someone who leaves their Glock in the glove compartment and it gets into a criminal’s hands.

sarisataka remarks: So it is expensive and unfair to punish the person stealing the gun but plenty of money to lock up the guy who had his gun stolen after he locked it in the glove compartment inside of the locked car. I wonder if he gets a reduced sentence by using a trigger lock?

You really need to stop making errant non sequiturs based upon your own poorly derived false premises.
Observe your false premises:

sari: 1) So it is expensive and unfair to punish the person stealing the gun
What was actually written: Long prison sentences for breaking into a car would be expensive and unfair

Sari misrepresents saying the link said it was "expensive & unfair to punish the person stealing the gun", when the link did not say that at all, just that LONG prison sentences were expensive (true), and unfair (possibly depending on record & other).

Sari: 2) So it is expensive and unfair to punish the person stealing the gun but plenty of money to lock up the guy who had his gun stolen after he locked it in the glove compartment inside of the locked car.

Please explain, sarisataka, how you got to that inane conclusion when there was NOTHING to suggest that the there was 'plenty of money to lock up the' gun owner whose gun was stolen, nor any expressed intent to lock him up. The link said just that there was no serious penalty, such as a substantial fine or probation perhaps, to the gun owner who leaves guns unsecured in his locked or unlocked car.
Note the spin from sari, thinking a car needs be 'locked' to be broken into. It does not. you didn't know that, sarisataka? well now you do, eh? but it makes you unqualified to preach much about laws, until you bone up.

link: Long prison sentences for breaking into a car would be expensive and unfair, especially because there’s no serious penalty for someone who leaves their Glock in the glove compartment and it gets into a criminal’s hands

You shouldn't leave a dangerous killing gun machine in an unsecured manner, is what author meant by 'especially', since owner's setting bait, even tho he doesn't realize it nor intend to. But if his negligence results in a firearm being stolen, there should be some shared blame for that (lesser to the gun owner course), depending on circumstances.