"Never believe anyone who is not cross-examined."
We already have as extensive a back ground check as is possible right now, and we are required when applying for the check to disclose if we have any mental health issues. If we lie it's felony perjury.Disagree regarding age but mental health and background checks should be stringent no matter how old.
To go beyond this is to make laws authorizing our medical professionals to divulge to the government whatever they think is relevant gleaned from private, confidential meetings with patients. It would be immoral imo, though perhaps it's only not expedient or pragmatic, objectively. Bad idea either way.
We're working in some states to force people selling their lawfully owned guns to do so in cooperation with a federal firearms licensee (so the FFL can run the FBI back ground check). The trouble here is that there's already laws forbidding us from selling to known felons, it's a federal felony if we do this.
Perhaps if we don't already have this, we could outlaw selling privately to someone you know to be suicidal. That could be a crime, if it isn't already.
Of course the other trouble with all these nitpicking gun controls is that Ukraine, exists. Obviously it's abject lunacy to suggest that enemy invasion is impossible right now. And really forever, so long as there are sovereign nations with any belligerent ambitions at all.
In the "war test" for gun control proposals, many of them fail prima facie. Would you deny a Ukrainian civilian a standard issue military rifle and ammunition right now, just because the man is a armed robber, if the Russians are coming, like just over that hill? The question in the war test spins around the situation. Ideally we don't want armed robbers loose, but if the Russians are coming, the question's more about loyalty. Is this armed robber going to defend Ukrainians? Or will he side with the Russians.
Even suicidal people might in a moment of need provide the game winning cover fire while the young family flees to safety.
The war test makes us first ask, "Where do you stand on the Constitution?" Very much like how our Constitution forces all our government officials, both elected and appointed (hired), to swear an oath to defend the Constitution. That would be a more apt back ground check or mental health check or age test for owning standard issue weaponry, and carrying them openly as you go about your business.
Does this guy support the Constitution? Then give him a gun----and a good one, standard issue military anyway. And super max capacity magazine clips. "Magazine 'clips'".
For suicidal people frankly you'd probably have to interview everybody personally. You'd have to interrogate them, get them to disclose their suicidality through cunning. Say, "Sure, you can have guns, just as soon as we complete this series of in-person interviews." If you're not suicidal, it should be a piece of cake. It should only catch truly suicidal people.
How do you design a law that would put such a system in place?
Maybe do the suicidality interview first, and then followup with the oath to the Constitution. If they fail either they can't get any guns.