As one person here mentioned, Jesus once spoke of swords with his disciples. Luke 22:35-38 is an account of an event on the last night of his life. Jesus told them to buy a sword but when a couple of his disciples produced two, he said it was enough. Was Jesus here recommending that disciples arm themselves for attack? Hardly. For self-defense? Nope. How do we know? Well . . .
Once events began to unfold in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the soldiers were in the process of arresting him, impetuous, impulsive Peter used one of the swords to chop off the ear of one of the men. What did Jesus do? Hail him as a hero? Commend him for using the sword in defense? No. Jesus reprimanded him and said “those who take the sword will perish by the sword." So then, if Jesus was telling his followers to arm themselves for self-defense, why did he reprimand Peter? Why did he heal the poor man's ear? Why did he say that those who take up weapons will perish by same?
It should be readily apparent that Jesus did not tell them to arm themselves for self-defense or even for defense of Him - their Lord. Patently, he was teaching an object lesson in saying that the two swords they had were "enough."
We are not saying that a Christian cannot defend himself against attack. Indeed, every person - Christian or not - has the right to do so. Defend yourself with whatever is at hand and if it is definitely a matter of your life or your assailant's life, you have the right to take his in place of your own. This does not mean, however, that Christians would arm themselves in advance with weapons of violence for the sole purpose of self-defense.
Considering all scriptures having to do with violence, weapons, and Jesus as the Prince of Peace, does it seem reasonable to suggest that because we have a right to self-defense, we all have a right to go to the gun store and arm ourselves for this specific purpose?
Hannah J Paul