Etymology – Why Is News Said to Be ‘Breaking’?

If you miss your mother, you do not have what you want (her). If you miss your target, you do not have what you want (a hit) either. This use of the mental conception of "having something" has apparently shifted a bit from "keeping physically near" to "counting among one's successes" in the case of the verb to miss. You could say that "having someone near", "having something in possession", and "having success" are linked in some way.

You might also define both senses by using a word other than "having", in which case you'd need to describe some other but similar metaphoric shift in meaning; I believe this shift in to miss and "having" is all part of a vague complex of conceptions of "nearness" and "possession" and "likeness" that are intimately connected in our minds. This is probably because in Prehistoric times the concepts of physical dimensions, movement, and time developed first; our patterns of thinking about those concepts we later reused for (often abstract) phenomena that are essentially different but can still be dealt with in useful ways by means of these patterns (large chance: I see no "large" object?; the well runs dry: what is it that "runs"?; you have a point: I see nothing "pointy"?' etc.). See the Wikipedia article on Conceptual Metaphor.

The OED gives the pertinent meaning of suit as:

1. To provide, furnish. Chiefly pass. (or refl.), to be provided (or provide oneself) with something desired and in such a manner as to please one.

Therefore 'suit yourself' is just another way of saying 'please yourself'. It's not metaphorical.

The OED also has an entry for the phrase itself:

b. suit yourself v. do (or think) as you please, please yourself. colloq.

1897 R. Kipling Capt. Courageous i. 21 ‘You stole it.’ ‘Suit yourself. We stole it ef it's any comfort to you.’