I won't deny that guns do make for a quick death but if guns are enabling more suicides then we would have more than Japan. Not only that but in Australia suicide by gun went down but suicide by other means went up. Besides, as heartless as this sounds taking your own life is your own business. I don't see why I need to give up my right to firearms just for those who would kill themselves by any means. Even if you say that we should force everyone to keep guns in safes (a) how are you going to enforce that without violating other rights listed in the constitution and (b) even if your successful, from what I recall the US consider a spur of the moment decision to commit suicide is about five to ten minutes. You can open a safe well within five minutes.
No, that's not how anything works. There are two things that are required for suicide. if you want to write it mathematically, M+A=S. Motive plus ability gives suicide. If there's less motive, you'd only go for more accessible methods. If there's more motive, you'd be happier even doing things that need a major exertion. So in places like Japan, where there's more motive, ability isn't as key. In places like the US, where A skyrockets, people would need far less motive. It's connected. Just because Japan has more doesn't really matter because it's a fundamentally different environment. you can't focus on A and ignore M, both play a part.
And, yes, you should give up your quotation-marks-emphasised 'right' if it benefits no one and increases the rate of suicide and the like. Something like that should not be considered a right. Free speech is a right, freedom of expression, freedom of choice... They're rights. Being able to easily get a weapon with no purpose beyond killing is not a right.
My point is its not the number of guns that's rose the crime rate.
And yet the crime rate's fallen since the gun control legislation, rather than risen as you'd expect if guns were somehow preventative, and seems to be falling faster than we would have expected beforehand. So, maybe making guns less accessible actually helps stop criminals getting ahold of them, who'd have thought?
Even if gun ownership increases, compare that with population growth, and remember the substantial difficulties in getting a gun, and note that there is worry about what that would entail. It's not a happy ending if it's still ongoing.
There are a whole host of changes that could be made to the US, and given you've had a whole amendment repealed before now it's perfectly justifiable to propose alterations to the second. That's what amendments are for. That's how your system fundamentally works. Propose people pass mental health checks, background checks etc before they get a gun. Scrap the Dickey Amendment, which in practise prevents neutral organisations from studying and possibly aiding with gun violence. Let organisations like the ATF use databases to actually keep track of guns sold so they can, you know, do their job. Make mandatory learning about and following basic safety measures. Limit the weapons made accessible.
And this is all minor: likely wouldn't even touch what the second amendment covers. You can still keep and bear arms if you want to, there are just common sense limitations, like there are for even freedom of religion: you can practise whatever religion you want
so long as it doesn't feature a tenet that hurts others, like sacrifice. There are always common sense caveats.
But really, this all comes down to one simple question: why do you want a gun?
Because it's your right doesn't mean anything alone. There should be a reason for it to be considered a right: there is for everything else considered a right.
Does it help you? Well, no, we've seen it doesn't. No advantage when it comes to preventing crime, at-home or otherwise, according to a neutral source and neutral numbers. As far as preventing a tyrannical government goes, you'd be thoroughly outgunned regardless because we don't live in the time of when the second amendment was written: the best armaments are not handheld.
There is no actual benefit to having a gun. End of. Your best-case stats agree; the best you could argue from them would be that gun control doesn't decrease crime, as there was certainly no statistically relevant increase. At this stage your only recourse, of the points you've brought up, seems to be to point at the recreational uses. If you want to do that, fine, but a) typically you wouldn't need to have it at your house, pick it up at a shooting range or whatever like you would with bowling, and b) hardly raises it to the calibre of a right.