Some people use euphemisms instead of just saying it like it is. (Not saying you, but this is the spot to address it).
I'm not willing to put on a belt to go to the store. If that is so, it would be the truth.
I'm not willing to wear a holster on belt. If that is so, it would be the truth.
Task, risk assessment, anticipated threat, just may be said in place of (as a euphemism for) I'm not willing to. ...
A little conflation can go a long way, though.
Is it one of those "we prefer truth over facts" things?
If someone chooses not to put on a belt to go to the store, does that mean they 'prefer' not to wear a belt? Or that not wearing a belt is better than wearing one? Maybe it's just a situational thing for the moment. Maybe they just don't feel like changing out of sweat pants to pants with belt loops?
Ditto deciding not to put a holster on their belt (if they're even wearing a belt). Does it mean they
prefer not wearing a holster, or believe it's always 'better'?
When handguns are a compromise in the first place, choosing when to carry whatever size & caliber handgun is just another aspect of the original compromise premise. If someone wants to claim that they're the ultimate arbiter of what's right and proper? Well, who gets to decide that?
Situational context and the circumstances people anticipate encountering on any particular day are going to matter to the people making such decisions for themselves. Trying to make everyone conform to the same ideals someone arbitrarily decides is 'proper' is like thinking it's appropriate to make everyone have the same beliefs, for all things, all the time, etc.
People can be judgmental ... and yet think they're being reasonable and using common sense. That yellow brick road has ended up putting folks out in the weeds, now and again.
Might as well think it's a good use of one's time to argue how to pronounce tomato and potato.
People have made 'less than optimal choices' as long as people have been around. People who have made the (seemingly) right choices have occasionally also found that they may come up short even when making that same choices that have been 'right' for them at other times. Life can be funny that way.
In the meantime, if someone chooses a handgun, regardless of caliber and carry method ... what's the chance they may actually be able to use it safely, accurately and effectively under even the worst of conditions? Will they even see it coming? How long will they be stuck in the "freeze" part of the
freeze, flight, or fight response? Will they even be able to successfully negotiate the Observe part of the OODA Loop when something bad happens?
Getting too sidetracked with trying to determine what's adequate 'gear' - let alone presuming to think it ought to apply to everyone - may not prove to be a great thing.
What would think of being denied entry to a particular training class you wished to attend, but the instructor/staff decided that only people carrying .45ACP pistols were sufficiently armed or serious about their choice in caliber, and nobody carrying 9/.357SIG were allowed to attend? Probably disgruntled? Disagree? Question what
Opinions are like armpits. Everyone usually has a couple of them, and they can begin to smell when things get warmed up.
Basically, I would have to say I probably disagree with your original opinion stated in your OP. However, it's certainly your prerogative to have a personal bias about such things. Different strokes, after all.