About USA: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mos...
In France where weapons are relatively rare except for hunting : https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2017/10/05/quels-est-le-...
That French page is not very useful - total numbers of firearm deaths is not as important as looking at suicide rates. Suicide rates between the US and France are 13.7 and 12.1 respectively (WHO 2016 data). That doesn't seem like a very big difference, especially if you consider the large difference in guns per 100 people (US 120, France 19, suggesting weak correlation). You also see developed countries in that data which have low gun ownership and higher suicide rates (Sweden, Japan, etc). This seems to point to factors other than gun ownership driving suicide rates.
The New York article is looking at short term reduction studies. We see that suicides drop temporarily after a prevalent method of suicide has been removed. If we follow the rate over time, it will increase as people learn of new ways to kill themselves. In the US, we have recently seen an increase in teens gassing themselves with household chemicals. It just takes time for societal knowledge to perform that shift, so you end up playing a shell game.
The best way to reduce suicides is to focusing on getting at-risk individuals treatment. The starting point is to destigmatize the subject and educate people on the options. Addressing the root problems are more effective than addressing the symptoms, which just ends up going down a never-ending rabbit hole of banning the next method to replace the last. There are a number of mental health workers who agree.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201607...
I think the main issue with firearms and suicide is the easyness and effectiveness. For sure someone very sick and determined may find other methods. I don't know if it's easy to compare suicide rates and weapons usage among various countries. Perhaps with fewer guns USA would get a lower suicide rate among males. Perhaps not.
So yes it's your choice. From my perspective, having a easily accessible gun is not worth the risk for me and my family considering the data and the likelyhood of needing a gun for self defense.
I've heard the argument before (temporary idea and effective means), which probably is true of the non-terminally ill. I haven't seen any data supporting it so far. I've also haven't seen any definitive evidence against it, only suggestive stuff.
There are some states with restrictive gun laws that show a slight decrease, but others seem to be unaffected (continue to increase). Just as there were less restrictive states that show the same mixed behavior. (CDC data referenced by both sides)
One thing that I saw in the CDC data was that suicide rates have risen over the past 30 or so years for all states. Non-firearm suicides are 27% more common since the 80s, but it didn't look at why firearms are decreasing as a percentage. RAND says the number of homes with at least one firearm has stayed fairly consistent over that time (40% -/+ 5%). So it seems that there isn't a substantial reduction in suicides based solely on gun control laws, but it seems it's also impossible to say if the number would have been higher without those restrictions. The fact the ownership has stayed the same, but firearms are a lower percentage of suicide cases could just be demographic or preference issue, but we don't know.
One interesting thing I observed which I didn't see studies about (because both sides are focused on just confirming their positions on pro/anti gun policies) is the correlation between mental healthcare service ratings and suicide. This is just rough, but I found these two maps appearing to be more correlated than the gun ownership and suicide maps/studies. Just something I found interesting and would need an actual study to look into it.
https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/...
