Ok. Some of your points I agree with.
This one in particular is fantastic:
We can only reduce risk as the absolute removal of risk is impossible. Hence, theft is always a possibility. If a person uses good sense and responsibility in securing their firearm, there is nothing to find regretful if it's stolen. The criminal has availed himself of stolen firearms but the legal owner did not enable the criminal. However, that demands making decisions and taking action to the best of one's ability or circumstances.
I'd say it is still regretful that it was stolen, but you took reasonable precautions that it would not be and there are perhaps very limited lessons to be learned from that event.
(There are always lessons to be learned, but how pointed they are and how actionable varies greatly.)
What I find unfair is that so many are ready and willing to say, "Of course it's not your fault BUT if you had done _________, then the criminal wouldn't have done ________."
It's a fine line, is it not? We cannot ever say that if you had done X, the criminal wouldn't have done Y. None of us can know that. However, we still must be able to learn and incorporate lessons from watching (or experiencing) the negative outcomes of others (or ourselves).
Is there nothing at all to be learned from a police officer who says "I can't count the number of stolen car/truck gun reports I've taken? It happens all the time?" Is there nothing at all to be improved upon in your own habits if you walk out one day and a criminal now possesses the gun you kept tucked away in your car?
"Blame" is an unfortunate term to use. But education, experience, lessons learned -- those are extremely valid concepts and if you stop and think about it, figuring out what we might do better to improve our resistance to forms of criminal predation is the entire reason our S,T,&T forum exists.
We could say, "can't blame the victim for being killed. It was absolutely his right to be in that alley outside that club, unarmed and drunk at 2 am, with that rolex..." That dead guy should NEVER have had to change his plans, avoid drink, or carry a weapon. It isn't right that he should have to. It isn't FAIR. He's got every right to be there and do those things. The criminal is ENTIRELY to blame.
Our hero is still dead. And it is a little beyond our scope to try and determine whether he now feels (or is capable of feeling) righteous or regretful about his choices.
But most of us will do what we DON'T have to do (like carry a gun), and do things that it isn't RIGHT that we must do (like avoid known trouble spots and traveling certain areas late at night), even though that's not FAIR, in order to avoid becoming quite so dead as him, quite so early in life. No?
But we won't be persuaded not to casually leave firearms in unattended vehicles "just because?"