London is a city of over 8 million. Less than 2000 rioted. But as a mob they burnt people out of their homes and beat up, in one case beat to death, anyone that didn't surrender their property immediately.
You keep saying "statism" as if an anarchic society would allow that 2000 to prey on the 8 million. Can I suggest you read
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and understand that anarchists would have a police function and in events like riots would have conscription to ensure safety.
I'm not implying there would not be security against violence in an anarchistic society. I'm saying they're freaking out because they're upset with their own government, not because the "guns went away." The guns are a band-aid, and only work when your society is disarmed. Coincidentally, there happens to be a popular argument recently which the citizen should be disarmed, so they can be safe from themselves. Except the government doesn't feel they belong in this pool. If people had a proper defense against bullies, through their own means or through a business which specialized in security, we wouldn't be having this issue, and the riots against one's own government would not occur. Instead, the business of security is monopolized by a single entity; whether the guns are there or not, this is the state in which we live in, and though we can keep everyone in a prison or free, it doesn't change how they feel.
You didn't answer my question, by the way. So I'll present another, and I expect an answer to both: what shaped these people who want to rape and loot and pillage?