Why do you own a gun?

There you go quoting inaccurate numbers that have no direct meaning or relationship to anything else.

The population of England is 53 million not 65 million, to reach 65 million you'd have to add in the population of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and 1 million other people (tourists?). But hey, it's only numbers so who's counting. But population alone means very little because the land area occupied by those populations is not comparable.

So, in terms of population density the UK has 679 people per square mile compared to California's 251 people per square mile ... both of which pale into insignificance compare to 1,056 people per square mile in The Netherlands - which coincidentally is more or less the same as England (pop 53 million, density 1,054/sq mi). Lovely numbers but still meaningless because the population isn't evenly distributed across the land area, much of California is pretty much uninhabitable and 47% of the UK is uninhabited whereas The Netherlands has had to reclaim land from the sea just to grow tulips (to be fair, we employed Dutch engineers to do the same thing in England).

Therefore if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of urban conurbation, the population of Greater London (which is essentially the county of London) is 8.5 million, so 1.5 million less than LA County but its population density is five times greater than LA County. Again, lovely numbers that on their own don't mean a great deal.

So let's drill-down a little more: Los Angeles (city) has a population of 4 million compared to the City of London that has a population of 8,600... (yep, that's not a typo: approximately eight thousand six hundred people live in the City of London) - yet the actual population density of both cities is comparable because LA covers 469 square miles whereas the City of London is only 1 square mile. Once again, lovely numbers that don't mean much since the major criminal offence in the City of London is anti-social behaviour (which covers a variety of sins, including street drinking and littering - damn them City types with their quaffing of Pims and casual dropping of £5 notes on the floor).

Therefore let's compare regions of similar land-area - LA (city) vs Greater London - 4 million vs 8.5 million - 469 square miles vs 609 square miles - again Greater London is more populous and has a greater population density. LA deaths by firearms - 296 (in 2013) - Greater London deaths by firearms 29 (in 2014)

So it's not related to total population, or population density or city over-crowding. 

Does London have major drug networks? Yep. Is it as bad as LA? Who knows and I can't be arse to find out, let's say it isn't even though practically all organised crime in London (and everywhere else) is drug related.

No problem. You don't need to justify why you have a gun to me or anyone else. Owning a gun does not prevent any of those "facts" from occurring and it doesn't solve or alleviate any of the problems that cause them, if anything it can only make them worse as the criminals arm themselves for protection from those who arm themselves to protect themselves from the criminals... 

30,000 people will die in the USA this year with or without gun control because it takes years for gun control to take effect. It isn't a quick-fix. I seriously doubt you will ever achieve same percentage of gun-related deaths as the UK (which would reduce that 30,000 to just 750) but reducing it by a factor of 10 to 3,000 would be a remarkable achievement. 

I don't think anyone ever their mind changed by an internet post. But that's never been the reason for posting an opinion.

Almost.