People choosing a tool of convenience to end their own lives shouldn't adversely impact the rights of those who do not unlawfully use their firearms.
It's not that I don't have compassion for others or those that they leave behind, it's more like the difference between a person losing their life in an automobile accident and losing it to the deliberate act of another person utilizing their vehicle as a weapon. The police nor the insurance companies categorize a deliberate act as an "accident".
True. The Police nor the insurance companies categorize a deliberate act as an accident. Neither do I.
Did the person who decided to bring a gun into their house have a means to kill themselves before they made the decision? True.
Did the person who decided to kill themselves use a gun instead of the other means in the 20,000 statistic? True.
Did the person above still have other means but chose the gun because it was quick, effective, and supposedly painless? Probably.
So the stat is relevant.
The point is that if the gun wasn't there, they wouldn't have committed suicide. You can draw that conclusion because they had the means previously and chose not to. It is true that person's situations do change over time so there is that.
Now, you mentioned rights. Let me state again, that I do not want to prevent people from buying guns, owning guns, shooting guns, etc... In some rural areas of the nation where there is 100 miles (or more) to the nearest police station and it may be staffed by one officer; it would be irresponsible not to have some form of protection. My position is that the gun doesn't make you safer statistically. If the nearest cop is 100 miles away; I'll take my chances. If I'm in most areas where folks live, I wouldn't. That being said...there is something to the psychological aspect of having "protection" even though statistics show that you're actually less safe.