No matter if you support the NRA or not, you must admit there are many cases were the lives of people have been saved due to having a gun.
According to the story, one of the two guns discharged when he was handling the bag that the guns were in. This tells me that he ignored some basic gun handling measures like having the safety on and not having it loaded until when not in use. Thing is, why would someone ignore some of these basic rules? The most logical reason to me is because he probably felt he may need to use it at a moments notice, that he may drive through areas where his life may be in danger so needed it at the ready. Sure, in this case, his plan backfired (no pun intended), but if your driving through various areas, you know that your life may be in danger and that your better off having a gun than being caught without one.
They won't change their minds no matter how much gun violence occurs. The stats speak for themselves we have had more than one massacre at the hands of assault weapons. We have also had tragic senseless death due to accidental gun fire such as what happen to Tipton yet I doubt it will ever wake the NRA up at this point it would be nice if it would just wake up Congress.
It is my opinion that it would take much more than yet another tragic death such as ex-Colts running back Zurlon Tipton's to dissuade the NRA from their belief that guns save lives. Quite honestly while I am in favor of much stricter gun laws, they do (when used properly) save lives.
After every tragedy that has happened the NRA was there to say guns aren't the problem. Nobody on either dide of this wants to talk about or negotiate about the real issues involving guns ad gun violence. It has always been that way and seems to always continue to be that way.
The problem is that the debate within America is framed by extremists in such black and white terms, either guns are banned completely or else you can have no more restrictions. The Supreme Court has already established that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, you're not allowed to own a nuclear weapon as an extreme example. So the question is, what level of restrictions are acceptable? There are entirely rational restrictions that can be put in place, without impinging on the right to bear arms, ie universal background checks.