That report only cites 3 or 4 incidents, but it doesn't say those were the only incidents. It does, however, state:

"The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself."

I think what the author is trying to say is, a ban on guns is NOT the beat all, end all solution people think it is. The only people who would be affected by such a ban would be law abiding citizens, not the criminals. The article cites several examples where criminals who wish to use a gun will do so whether guns are illegal or not.

Granted, Great Britain and Australia may not have as much gun violence as the U.S., but that may be due to the fact that there are fewer guns there (?). Is there a larger occurance of violent crime in Great Britain and Australia where other means are used? Not sure.

What the U.S. REALLY needs to do is ENFORCE the laws already on the books, not enact more laws. Don't punish the lawful gun owners with more arbitrary laws that no one will have the stomach to enforce anyway.