I am amazed at how lax so many students are over their very expensive possessions

You'd be very surprised. I've seen groups of friends occupying a whole table to leave in unison to go for lunch somewhere, leaving all their laptops, iPads and everything else.

Yeah I've seen the same, never understand it. Even when I'm on a train which isn't stopping anytime soon, I always put my laptop and phone in my bag and bring it to the toilet with me. People complain I'm slightly too protective and cautious of my possessions, but I've never once lost anything expensive - and usually the people complaining are careless and lose/have expensive things stolen

Anyone moronic enough to steal a laptop in a uni library probably can't even get into the library in the first place.

Who says that by leaving something unattended they're not taking responsibility for their own possessions? Either they have a different conception of the risk involved in leaving items unattended, or they're comfortable with taking on that risk - neither of which imply irresponsibility.

I don't think there's such a thing as being too cautious with your most expensive possessions. As a generation, we've essentially normalised the idea of losing/breaking your phone on a night out. I'm sure the generation above would not understand the idea of taking a £500 piece of technology out on a night out and routinely exposing it to the risk of loss, theft or destruction.

In public spaces, I generally operate on the assumption that valuable possessions are at risk of being stolen unless directly within my line of sight. I've never had anything valuable stolen from me.

Let's get one thing straight: I certainly wouldn't blame the victim outright; I would, however, have less sympathy for someone losing their property in a in a situation such as that rather than say—a mugging. We are perhaps arguing semantics, however. The basis of your argument is perception. I'd say it's irresponsible to leave your belongings in an area in which there's a probability (however small) of it getting stolen.

I'm not following your reasoning as to why you find it irresponsible. If they are comfortable with their assessment of the risk involved then in what way are they behaving irresponsibly?

It is inevitable, you're right. If you don't want it stolen, you should be more careful.

As a general rule, I find it's girls who are the most lax and careless about their expensive possessions. It's like they literally have no concept of security. I sometimes overhear conversations in the library of people who have lost their debit card and phone on a night out and strangely, it's always a girl who is saying this.

Once again, you argue perception. If there is someone out there who really is comfortable with the risk, and takes responsibility thereby—I haven't a problem. Most people, however, seem not to accept responsibility when, for instance: their property gets stolen. Therein lies my argument.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem to be in line with your previous statements (e.g., "I'd say it's irresponsible to leave your belongings in an area in which there's a probability (however small) of it getting stolen.") I'm now reading you as saying you only have a problem with people who don't accept responsibility when their property gets stolen, i.e., that you can leave your belongings unattended responsibly. But even saying this, accept responsibility for what? For being a victim of crime?

I'm also still not following your reasoning as to why you find it generally irresponsible. You say, "Most people, however, seem not to accept responsibility when, for instance: their property gets stolen." - what exactly do you mean by that?

And you re-iterated it, but I'm not sure what you mean by saying I argue 'perception' - if it's important please clarify what you mean by that.

I believe it is you who must clarify your position. You talk of general 'victim blaming' when in fact what you're only defending a very specific instance. If someone was to accept partial responsibility for the theft of their property because they did not take all of the precautions available to them—I wouldn't have a problem. To be clear (as you quite obviously have difficulty following simple lines of thought): I wouldn't blame a victim who did protest and refuted responsibility; but I would certainly have less sympathy for them. I cannot state my position any clearer.

I said they deserve what they get; not that their possessions deserve to be stolen.

Simply not true.

I remember reading some crime stats and many shoplifters/thieves etc were employed middleclass people. The assumption that students are to clever or well-off to be tempted into theft is wrong.