OK, you didn't really say anything here. You set up a nonsensical compare/contrast straw man that didn't actually bear any resemblance to my own points. I mean, come on - is your reading comprehension really such that you are actually asking whether I prefer eating a bullet to a burger? Or are you using a straw man in lieu of a substantive argument? I'll entertain you, however, as though you had offered me something sensible to work with.

You first leapt WAAAAAY out on a limb to wash the hands of every gun owner in America with the blood of innocent victims of gun violence. Then you turn around and become the voice of reason when I hand you back that same insane blame-shifting logic {but replacing guns with food). It's almost as though you feel like the medicine you offer is good for everyone but you, or good for all polarizing issues except yours.....the bottom line is this - If I assume culpability for mass murders by simply owning and refusing to give up a gun, then how can you possibly not be culpable for the contributions cheeseburgers make to both the mortality rate and public health care costs in the US if/when you spend your money making BIG BURGER CORP filthy rich.....with money, by they way, that they will spend mind boggling amounts of on ad campaigns specifically designed to become embedded in your and your children's' memories. Childhood brainwashing isn't evil at it's core or you just don't care about children? See how ridiculous it gets? Of course you care about children, as do the rest of us....

You talk about gun control as though preventing deaths were the only and/or biggest factor to consider. If this were true, if retention of life trumps all else, then the burger debate becomes more relevant than ever. The number of people killed by guns in this country (especially after you subtract all the good shoots) is straight up laughable compared to impact of the obesity epidemic. If I'm a heartless uncaring bastard for not giving up my gun to save x number of lives, what are you for laughing at the idea of dropping your cheeseburger to save 100 times that many lives? (that number was pure random example, not an actual statistic). Don't get lost on "burger" vs "guns" because there are countless debatable points we could plug in in place of "guns" or "burgers" and the issue would still be the same: personal choice and accountability for those choices. (Someone PLEASE ask me about this later - I actually have some thoughts on middle ground solutions) My point here is that you cannot simply water this issue down to the broadest, most sweeping points and make policy based on those points. There is far more to consider than the face value (see "unintended consequences").

"How is comparing the personal choice of" was the key part of your question and the statement that followed. Personal choices are exactly what we should be comparing and the issues become very similar once we remove the inanimate object from the equation and start to lay blame at the feet of the actors of violence. Gun controllers want only the cops to have guns - good deal! Cops in the US are killing We the People, unarmed I might ad, in record numbers. They have their guns legally and our pile of dead bodies (for the purpose of this discussion) have none. Is the gun to blame here too? I don't hear anyone screaming for gun control when a cop kills an unarmed citizen, instead, you all cry for his head....or his job or freedom or whatever. We demand THE COP be brought up on charges or fired but we don't demand all cops be disarmed. I cannot stress this enough - objects are inanimate and cannot be inherently evil while choices, on the other hand, are the factor that determines evil.
I propose to you that THIS is why so many people bristle at arguments like mine: it forces you to face the fact that YOU are responsible for EVERY choice you make and you will NEVER outrun or escape that fact no matter how carefully you craft your excuse or what object you blame your sins on. Shooters are to blame for shootings.