I am not stating opinion as fact as you claim. I am making a...

I am not stating opinion as fact as you claim. I am making a reasoned argument as to why cities do not and will not use this technology.

I notice that you have made no attempt to refute the argument, but have dumped a whole lot of links, most are not examples at all, or extreme examples that are atypical, i.e. the Indian example which is in a volatile region and the Paris Olympics which is an enormous event with a massive budget and the intention is almost certainly about giving the impression of protection, when in reality it does not do any such thing. In fact, the New York article highlights additional problem with using drones in built up areas and says “The range of RF frequencies and the tall buildings as obstacles provide numerous challenges for this technology to positively identify threats in the area compared to other environments where you’re basically out in an open field.” Your examples are also trials, not installations.

Your featured video shows the Singapore example, but this is for general use to bring down drones where it is safe to do so and makes no reference to the protection of built up areas or for major events. No doubt because they have them for other purposes, they will bring them in for major events, but that is only because they have them, but they won't pay for new ones to be bought in or for a permanent installation. As I have stated in every piece on this topic (but which you conveniently ignore), cities know that drones are not the biggest threat, which are improvised explosives in backpacks. Of course they will bring in a few of the anti-drone guns like in the Singapore video to show that they are not completely vulnerable to attack of this kind, but cities will not pay for additional permanent installations.

I notice that for all your links, you do not have one that describes a city in a Western nation that has paid to put in place permanent anti-drone equipment around a vulnerable area. That equipment makes perfect sense for sensitive installations, but none at all for places with large easily infiltratable crowds.