I do think gun owners need to consider the implications of modern media and social connections.
We are the dominant voice in firearms policy for a number of reasons. We know a lot about guns, it makes us good at thinking about the implications of policy. One of the biggest advantages is that we are invested. Gun laws impact us every day unlike those who don't own guns. The further you are into firearms, and especially carry, the more it impacts you and the more passionate you are. There are also a LOT of us. This is to our advantage.
The anti-gun community nucleus tends to be even more passionate. It is heavily populated by survivors and family of victims of violence perpetrated by armed people. Their extremely negative experience makes them die hard. While their are plenty of pro-gun victims of violence involving firearms, you will find many who are surprisingly comfortable with some forms of firearms regulation. Thankfully for gun enthusiasts, the number of passionate anti-gun victims are relatively few.
However, media (regular and social) may be changing the calculus a bit. In 1995, a shooting produced a 3 minute spot on the evening news with some video and pics. Now people get breaking updates and are bombarded by immersive video and audio from the event. The blood, screaming, fear, helplessness of the event is transported to the viewer. A person who has never personally touched a gun or heard a real gunshot can get some of the experience that made those anti-gunners so dyed in the wool.
At some point, appeals to reason or worse yet claims that nothing can be done will simply stop being listened to.
I am not saying gun control has to be implemented, but we likely need to put some hard, uncomfortable thought into what can be done to help with an issue that is turning into a threat to our rights. You cannot get rid of drunken driving, its impossible. But we did recognize that it needs to be mitigated to a degree and drunken driving has never been less common in the automobile era than it is now.
There were suggestions above about medical training and pushing that. I totally agree, that needs to happen, period. If for no other reason than we need to enforce within our own movement that the purpose is preparedness, not firearms cosplay. You don't get to claim, "I'm a sheepdog!" because you carry a gun and then when you come across a traumatic amputation at a road accident shrug and say, "Let the professionals handle it." Or at the least, you have to say in the AAR to the incident, "Maybe I should be carrying a TQ."
Also, I thought about the donating blood stories in the news after the shooting. I think red blooded patriots should shed blood for their country. How about donating blood regularly rather than simply after an event? We will usually not be anywhere near the crisis, but our blood might help. It also carries moral high ground. That blood might save the life of a shooting victim in Chicago. We frequently pillory the left for harping on mass shootings and forgetting the grind of gangland shootings. Regular blood donations helps those events as well as mass shootings. Call it "Blood of Patriots", "Tree of Liberty" or some such.
It would be a start at least.