I think the rush to close questions is overwhelming, and as soon as one person has VtC, everyone piles on (and often there is no comment). I don't know of many cases where a user has had sufficient feedback to even understand why their question is of low quality, never mind the time (and probably the know-how) to improve it before that fifth (or moderator) hammer comes down.
Sure, we could expect everyone to read the FAQ to avoid the problem in the first place, but nobody's going to do that, and no amount of "Read the FAQ n00b!" is going to prevent it from continuing to happen. And we could post a what have you tried link and wipe our hands of it, thinking we've taught the user something, but they won't have time to read that resource and fix the question before everyone else VtC.
What I think we can do as a community to lower this barrier is to give folks more opportunity to improve their questions before we all pile on them and close them. I'm as guilty as the next guy but I'm trying to be better. I think if we all try to be a bit better about using constructive criticism and education rather than reprimanding them, this will become less of an issue. Nothing formal obviously, but if you find an answer of low quality, leave a comment suggesting how they should improve their question to make it answerable, and only VtC after considerable time has passed and they've done nothing about it (or have argued with you, which is a self-induced form of barrier that should remain in place - if they are intentionally defiant of your advice to improve their question, there's not much else you can do about that).
I say "considerable time" to be purposely vague, as that is up to you; just keep in mind that people in different time zones may not see your comment until tomorrow, even if it's the beginning of your day. I also understand that the likelihood of you checking up later on someone you gave a chance to is minimal, but if 5 people VtC immediately because none of them will check back later...
As an aside, it's always puzzled me that down-voting a question doesn't cost rep. I don't want to re-open old and dragged-out discussions on the topic, so I'm not linking to any on purpose, but I have to wonder if this would be less of a problem if down-voting questions had some impact on rep. I realize that we don't want any barriers to down-voting crappy questions, either, but perhaps:
The 5th down-voter is the only one who pays (thereby at least potentially delaying that nail in the coffin, giving the user time to scramble and improve their question, while still allowing folks to indicate their dissatisfaction with the original question unscathed).
Or perhaps we could make it easier (err, possible) to un-VtC if we observe that someone has made a sufficient effort to improve the question. We can vote to re-open after the question has been closed, but until then the question is headed downhill with no brakes...