I think there are good replies in the thread.

Per OECD for 2021, the majority of suicides in the US are by men at 23.000 per capita. The national average is 14.100 per capita and for women it's reported to be 5.700 per capita.

The following isn't sourced, my understanding is that women in aggregate have more suicide attempts. Men often use guns, if the sickness that affects the people who commit suicide and those who commit mass shootings is similar, I don't think it's far-fetched to say a solution to the poor mental health of men would benefit women quite a lot as well. I understand that it is a part of the culture in the US, despite that I think the knock-on effects of treating a large proportion of the population of individuals who have a higher chance of being involved with death through the use of a gun would perhaps decrease a ton of gun related harm.

What could be done for mental health? I think women's rights need to be protected first, which may be unintuitive for some. As that would generally reduce tension. I'm not a woman, I have read sentiments from the US where women stated they were very cautious with becoming romantically involved with men as there is a higher risk getting pregnant if you are sexually active and there would be no recourse for them if they decided they did not want the baby. Being on edge like that is not conducive towards an open and health environment for all involved I think.

The reason why I don't think enacting too many restrictive laws (say banning all handguns or something which would be negatively viewed across the political aisle), some of which disproportionally affect men would work, is it doesn't seem as though it would positively affect men's mental health.

Maybe one might argue that operating in men's interests has been the standard operating procedure, why would it work now? As well, why does it make sense to aid them when they have historically had certain advantages?

Unfortunately for that argument, though I am sympathetic as I believe the opposite can be very invalidating for those who suffer, is not necessarily productive. I really think, like most issues, it needs to be treated from the perspective of the individuals interests guided towards a common interest. Of course if it's only done for their benefit to the detriment of any other group it wouldn't really work. That said, in any area where there's change there are contradictions. Solving those contradictions unfortunately involves some give and take, the outcomes might be known but the path certainly isn't. The uncertainty is definitely enough to dissuade anyone from acting, and the dialectical response is to pursue nonetheless.

NOTE Per capita means in every 100 000 persons