Whether it's gun control or big gulp control, it's still control and that should be the focal point of these ongoing debates. Liberals do not want you making your own decisions about self protection any more than Nanny Bloomberg wants you to decide how much soda to drink in a given sitting. Liberals don't just love gun control, or controlling your liquid consumption, they love control, period.
Just as regulating big gulps would have zero effect on the waistlines of NYers, strict gun control does not result in less gun crime.
Strict gun control is especially appealing to liberals for the simple fact that it directly impacts the most independent, informed, self reliant, and free thinking people in this country. AKA, those of us who wouldn't dream of proxy personal protection provided to us by an unaccountable government.
Bloomberg's goal was never to benefit the health of NYers by banning specific sizes of drinks just as the goal of gun control is not to actually control guns and make the world a safer place. Both efforts have the same end in mind: to control individuals.
With respect to gun control, think of it like this. A liberal like Dianne Feinstein is not really interested in you or I passing a criminal background check; What she desires is for you to feel obligated to ask the state for permission to buy a gun. Make no mistake, liberals know gun control laws will not stop criminals but again, that is not the desired outcome. They seek to erode our sense of independence and self reliance and convince people that they must seek the government's approval before they act.
The same goes for Bloomberg's efforts in New York. If he were able to arbitrarily regulate an individual's consumption of a drink for "the greater good," he could essentially make that case whenever he wanted to and make all kinds of choices for individuals. It's all about control.
Owning a gun is a choice, just like drinking a big gulp in New York City is a choice. The question becomes, who gets to make that choice.