I'm sure you have heard from others in response to your article, but I hope you will take the time to read and think about these few major points.
First is the idea that any manner of regulation aimed at law-abiding people will have a significant effect on criminals, who are by definition not law-abiding, and will not follow these regulations anyway. Attacking someone is already illegal no matter where you go, and anyone who is willing to break those laws isn't going to lose any sleep about breaking a few others. You could argue that a "crime of passion" prevents a person from thinking clearly about breaking laws, but this just confirms that laws against a particular object will not stop (or even slow) crime. Someone who has decided (even in a moment) to attack another person will simply use whatever is closest, even their own fists if nothing else is handy.
This brings up the second point. And that is your apparent fixation on the objects used in acts of violence, not the actions themselves. I hope you can agree that a handgun (or any other firearm) is by far not the only thing one person can use to harm another. Targetting an object for regulation rather than an action (even if we assume the regulations to be 100% adhered to) only invites the use of a different object. To eliminate the action, target the action itself, and those who perform it. Anything else will be ineffective.
I also must take issue with your statistical comparison of the UK and the US. I don't know if you have intentionally tried to mislead people by comparing murders with "gun-related fatalities" or if you simply don't know the difference, so let me explain. The definition of "murder" is very narrow, while the figure you cite for the US includes accidental shootings, suicides, and justified homicide, none of which can be considered murder. In addition, you completely ignore the concept of per capita statistics when comparing two countries of radically different population sizes.
Finally, I'd like to refer you to a quote by Ben Franklin. I'm sure you've heard it before, but it bears repeating - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." This is just as true today as ever. The right to bear arms is one of the essential liberties, and eliminating it in the name of safety will both fail to make people any safer and take away an important freedom.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts about this. Feel free to email me back if you have any comments.