At the heart of Harry and Meghan’s woes is a dispute over a legal system which prohibits private armed security. In the U.S., private armed security is legal and is an enormous industry in itself. More than 1.28 million security guards work across America and, subject to the law, many can legally work armed. In Britain, self-defense is not a legally permitted reason to obtain a firearm, and even American FBI agents must get special permission from the government to carry.
There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of Harry and Meghan’s complaints about their overall treatment in Britain, but on security, they do have a reason to be concerned. Harry can hire private security, but those guards not only lack access to intelligence—British law prevents those guards from carrying the firearms that would allow them to provide comparable armed protection.
The question raised is bigger than the royal family. If an individual faces a credible threat and is willing to pay for highly trained, vetted private security, why should the government prevent them from doing so? Like America, Britain ought to allow the creation of a security market. The U.K. does not have to make taxpayers foot the bill for Harry and Meghan’s security, but neither should it maintain a monopoly on the kind of protection they are allowed to buy.
— Reem Ibrahim in Harry and Meghan’s Security Problem Is Really a Gun-Control Problem