E.g. one big difference between US and UK police irrespective of weapons is that US police seem far quicker to rush into a situation to end it instantly, while UK police will only do that in extreme cases (e.g. someone is actually being harmed right now). Otherwise, police will secure a perimeter and get people away if necessary, ensure they have overwhelming force, and only then approach the suspect.

There was the case a while ago where some axe-wielding idiot was shot in the US after attacking a police officer. Only said police officer was only in range because they'd pointlessly rushed in to try to arrest him without trying to de-escalate from a safe distance first. When that situation had first been created, it was probably the right decision to shoot, but that situation wouldn't have existed if police weren't acting recklessly in the first case.

If UK police were in the same situation, the two initial responders would likely have gotten people away, kept their distance, and waited to have a dozen or so colleagues in place and kept trying to de-escalate the situation as long as possible before intervening.

The more police are careful about escalation, the less reason criminals will have to risk escalation as well.

However, the example of Australia shows that you can roll back guns.