I have to say I don't recognise the country described in that first link (from the South African gun control campaign), although their statistics seem to finish in the late Nineties.
The second link is more recogniseable, but again comes from a particular slant, and even Cecil Adams seems to be comparing apples with oranges when he compares the UK to the US.

What I would say is that, unless you're young and black or involved in the drugs trade, you are extremely unlikely to come across gun crime in the UK.

Those cases where 'ordinary blokes' are shot make headline news because they are so rare. Young black kids are being shot on an almost weekly basis in the UK, but that doesn't seem tobother anyone apart from the Met's Operation Trident team.

What the stricter firearms laws do seem to have done is weed out the nutters who previously owned guns - the sort responsible for the Hungerford and Dunblane killings. They have had no effect at all on the criminal possession of firearms - save to prompt a small increase in the number of black-market handguns when possession became strictly illegal and a lot of WWII souvenirs found their way onto the black market.

Today, however, the vast majority of illicit weaponry has never been legally held.
As such, the UK gun laws are largely irrelevant when it comes to our current level of gun-related crime.

Nevertheless, there are few in the UK who would want to see them relaxed - even though, for people like me who do shoot, the laws have made the process more bureaucratic.

The Tony Martin case became a cause celebre with the British right-wing press, but he makes an unpalatable 'hero'. He did not have a certificate for the shotgun with which he killed the teenager. He had told people beforehand that he intended to kill anyone trespasasing on his land, and the teenager was shot outside the house as he was running away. In law, I'm afraid, that made any plea of self-defence quite meaningless - and so ilt should.