What does the NRA have to do with it? Because they stand between people who ignore basic facts and abolishing part of the Bill of Rights?

1. In most violent crime involving a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Preventing citizens from purchasing guns won't stop that. 

2. The only gun involved in this incident was a state issued firearm to a law enforcement officer and was fired in response to the victim stating he has been licensed to carry. The problem here isn't the gun, it's the training. 

I believe he means anyone in a "be wary" sense. Of course not ANYONE is carrying, but they COULD be carrying. 

However, this has always been the case. Open carry laws actually make it easier for a cop to identify who has a gun. 

Personal Musings: Does open carry extend to katanas? That'd be tight. 

most carrying weapons laws are just that for weapons. not specifically firearms. and most licenses are called concealed carry weapons permit or ccw. its not just for guns

Good cops need to speak out more against bad cops.

There was even a child in the car that could've been hit.

The cop asked for license and registration, and all the driver said was that he has a permit for a gun, while he complied to the officer while getting his wallet.

What provocation was that exactly?

You forgot the most important one in OP.
Give the police a decent danm training. A six week course is NOT enough to be thrown into law enforcement.
Even the half year plus three month of practial training some states give are nothing compared to the 2-3 years police trainees recieve in other countries.
Add to that the high pressure of knowing everyone could pull a gun on you at all times and you get overstressed and undertrained rookie officers.
They need better education.

Holy shit, this happened about a mile away from my house. I think it's time for a rule where officers can't shoot until they actually see a gun come out. No more of this "He was reaching for something" bullshit.

The provocation was the man stating that he had a gun and a conceal and carry permit while reaching for his wallet. I watched the video and this course of aciton was at least stated as what happened by the woman recording the aftermath of the incident. It was not worth the officer shooting the man by any means.

What we don't know is if there was any attidude given whilst stating he had a gun and if he reached behind him in what could be honestly perceived as an aggressive manor.

So far the only evidence we have and know about is what the woman was saying to the camera after the incident occured. I will refrain from judging the incident as a whole and will not make a determination of guilt on either the officer or the gunshot victim until more, if not all, facts are released.

For background on the area of incident, I live just a couple miles outside of Falcon heights and it is not a bad neighborhood, in fact it is a very low crime neighborhood. It may be it's own city but is much more of a neighborhood of St. Paul than it's its own city. It is not far from the center of the Twin Cities metro area and is in the metro area for those that are wondering. Flacon heights does not have their own police force. They are policed by St. Paul Police Department mostly but officially by the St. Anthony Police Department.

This man had a gun permit and in practically every country by law you are required to declare that you have a firearm when stopped by the police. The officer asked him for his license which he was reaching for before he was shot 4 times with his seatbelt still on. And for what? A busted tail light? Why are you even arguing this?

Again, the only facts we have are the account of the woman after the incident occurred. We do not know how things went down. I am not arguing in favor of the officer or the gunshot victim. As of now you are being far too quick to judgment based on an emotional eye witness account and not on facts. The only facts that we can see from the video is that he had his seatbelt on and that he was shot. From the angle of fire it is guaranteed to be the officer that shot and we know from later official reports that the man died. That is it, that accounts for all the facts in the situation.

The reason I will not pass judgment on either yet is the fact that we don't have the facts of the case.

What could have happened is the officer asked the guy for his license and registration. The guy verbally responded snidely and with anger that he has a gun and a permit. Then while saying this he also very quickly and aggressively reached behind his back making it appear to the police officer that he was going for his gun and not his wallet. The officer in fear of his life over what appeared to be an aggressive action pulled his pistol and shot as fast as he could so that would be assailant could not fire his weapon first.

The above description is very like not what happened given the gunshot victims academic and work history, but without further evidence we don't know. We do not even have an official account from the police officer as to what happened yet. We only have a video of an emotionally compromised woman telling us her account of the incident immediately after it occurred.