[JohnKSa]

It is hypocrisy of the highest form.

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Saying in situation X, people should do Y but then finding myself in situation X and doing Z instead would be hypocrisy.

But if the circumstances are different in the two situations, then it is NOT hypocrisy because the two situations are not the same. Saying in situation X, people should do Y, and then finding myself in situation W and doing Z is not hypocrisy because situation X is not the same as situation W.

Hypocrisy would be saying that I believe it is wrong to restrict the carry of loaded guns in gun shops and at gun shows but then not allowing people to carry loaded guns into my gun shop or at a gun show that I organize.

It is not hypocrisy for me to say that I believe it is wrong to place strict restrictions on carry in most public places while acknowledging that the additional risk in certain situations and places can warrant stricter restrictions than I might otherwise support in the general case. You might disagree with my viewpoint, but it wouldn't be accurate to call it hypocrisy because it doesn't meet the definition of hypocrisy.

Is the hotel or restaurant owner expected to assume liability the industry is not willing to assume?

The risk level is not the same. How many restaurant owners have stories about NDs in their restaurants? How many hotels have thousands of people handling guns on their premises in a single weekend? How many loaded guns are being pulled out and shown to others in a restaurant?

Different circumstances, different risk. Different risks warrant different levels of risk reduction.

I am an engineer. I go out in public every day just like a police officer does. However, my risk of being shot is just about nil. So am I being hypocritical when I say that I believe a police officer should wear a bullet proof vest while on the job while saying that it would be ridiculous for me to do the same? Of course not. Although we both have jobs and both go out in public and both experience risk in the course of a day, the circumstances of our jobs mean that the risk levels are very different and therefore the steps we need to take to deal with that risk are also going to be very different if we both take a reasonable approach to risk reduction/mitigation.

But, if both of us get shot, won't the potential "liability" be the same? YES. Getting shot could kill either of us. It's not the potential outcome that makes the difference in our actions, it's the differing risk level. I'm not saying he should wear a bullet proof vest to work because he is more vulnerable to bullets than I am. I'm making my assertion because his risk level of being shot is higher.

I understand what you are saying. It is the same reason the antigunners use for wanting to disarm America.

If you believe that it is the same then you don't understand. And again, saying something repeatedly won't make it true.

There are places where virtually believes guns should not be allowed due to unacceptable risk or unusual circumstances. The idea that people believe that a defendant should not be allowed to carry into a courtroom or that prisoners shouldn't be allowed to carry in jail, or that children shouldn't take guns to school, or that the risk of NDs is high enough at gunshows to warrant zip-tieing all firearms, doesn't mean that they are anti-gun. It just means that they accept that circumstances can change the level of risk and that differing levels of risk can warrant differing policies.