Knives are one step away -- I don't think the gun is as important in this case.
I'd argue for sensible gun control, but removing guns period could destabilize victims too. Having a sense of safety and security in the event of a home invasion, etc, is incredibly important. Not having that/taking it away feels like the easy paper solution, but is possibly much more harmful in the end (like forcibly institutionalizing people in local mental health hospitals, I'd note).
Very few people kill themselves with knives, but a ton do with hand guns.
And people in countries without such a gun culture do not have worse self defense outcomes than those with one, so that argument doesn’t seem to hold scientific water. No idea how you get to institutionalization in your argument, either.
People choose the easiest tool available to them. A common method in Europe is a belt to the doorhandle which is more painful and slower than a bullet. Removing tools does not prevent the outcome, just increases the suffering.
As a counter point though, different suicide methods have different fatality probabilities. Handgun to the head has a really high fatality probability, rope to the neck less so. Removing a high fatality suicide method could cause people to turn to a less fatal method.
You sound like an efficient assets manager. People turn to a suicide because their life is miserable, often for objective reasons (e.g. cancer) and you may find it hard to believe, but it's their right to end it.
I'd argue for sensible gun control, but removing guns period could destabilize victims too. Having a sense of safety and security in the event of a home invasion, etc, is incredibly important. Not having that/taking it away feels like the easy paper solution, but is possibly much more harmful in the end (like forcibly institutionalizing people in local mental health hospitals, I'd note).