You're wrong about "British subjects", which says a lot about you. You are overconfident with your facts. It takes all of a few seconds on the Web for you to check them before you hit post.
If you believe there are valid comparable crime statistics from today and 100 years ago, and that you can isolate all other changes in British society apart from gun ownership in your analysis, do go ahead and post it. I fancy a laugh.
The comment about the Queen is risible. A frequent trope of interviews with people who have had armed bodyguards is about the restrictions on their freedom that this entails. It might be necessary, because the alternative is worse, but it's hardly more free than not requiring armed bodyguards in the first place.
It is not theoretically impossible under British law for those men to have held guns, although I doubt they were held legally. Again, this is a simple fact that would have taken you seconds to discover if you'd have bother using the web.
As well as getting your facts wrong, your logic is pretty shoddy too. You're focused on people being defenceless. I'm focused on the fact that most criminals in Britain don't use guns in their crimes, and so there are far fewer gun deaths and gun woundings than there are in other countries where guns are more prevalent. Plus, obviously, the rate of accidental gun deaths and woundings is tiny, and the rate of deaths due to incompetent attempts to use guns to defend against attackers or perceived attackers is again tiny. You're looking the wrong way through the telescope. If you do that with a telescope, I hope you don't have a rifle with a sniper scope, or things are apt to end very messily.