I'm British and Canadian. I think you've brought up an interesting point about the UK. I have the same issue with the way the UK law was introduced. I don't really have time just right now to debate this one as I'm living in Sydney at the moment (used to live in the UK up until a couple of years ago) and have to put kids to bed - but I think it's important to discuss it - though I worry we're going to get sidetracked into a should we ban guns or not discussion, and that isn't the point I was trying to make.
However as a rebuttal - firstly mass shootings were very rare there - and the gun ban was a result of two incidents, one specifically being the Dunblane one which involved children and was horrific. The incidence of mass shooting was exceptionally low there. The fact that a mass shooting occurred in 2010 despite the gun ban I'd view as a point in favour of the camp that only they are ineffective, not to mention the general incidence of gun crime. But the point I wanted to bring up in response was specifically relating to incidents of gun crime.
Because I think it is unfair to point out that the homicide rate spiked after the gun ban. What is fair to point out however, is the gun violence rate has risen continuously since the 1996 ban, spiking in the 2000s and has quite recently reduced to levels lower than 1996 finally. That would be a pretty sound argument to me that perhaps the laws weren't effective. I'd argue the same for Australia, mass shootings non existent until a blip. In the UK we had the blip of 2010. As you rightly pointed out. I'd also point out New Zealand has had very relaxed gun laws (even a foreigner, the aussie who shot up the mosque, was able to get several easily). The fact is relaxed gun laws worked in New Zealand until 2019 (or was it 2018? time flies these days). Then the result knee jerk government action to shut gun ownership down may, arguably be an over-reaction since the society has managed it very well until now. Going back to the UK as an example - what legislation could we have imposed in 2010? Guns were already banned. There's no panacea for the issue in that case. Nor for the idiot that was caught firing an illegal handgun off from his flat the other day in London (not attacking anyone, just being a knob).
All the same I think you're missing the crux of my point. It isn't that society made a collective decision in this case to bring forth legislation to solve a problem. It is that the solution doesn't solve the problem at all in this instance. If the law had been in place before the massacre, it would have still happened in Canada.
That I think is the difference - in the UK when Blair and friends brought that law in, it was debated in parliament, passed and popular. The way the Canadian government is going about this law is sneaky and undemocratic. For the reasons I mentioned, that is my problem with it.
I'm happy to discuss the merits of gun control - but if a free society collectively votes for it, then that is how it should be, whether a minority like it or not. But that isn't what has happened in this case. It fails the fundamental test - would the law have had an impact, or is it catering to a base?
The fact is, it would not, and it is.