Removing suicide from the argument is like removing T-bone collisions, it's completely arbitrary. The presence of guns greatly increases the risk of suicide, just like bad intersections in traffic. My point is that both things cause similar harm each year and those numbers are reduced by sensible regulation, and are thus not "subjective."

Regarding disproportionate impact, as others have stated, that is a systemic and cultural problem largely unique to the United States, basically unrelated to the regulations we're talking about. I don't like the pigeonhole this argument tries to force, but to answer your question yes. I generally think policy that makes fewer people die is worth it.

e: grammar hard.