If I am not mistaken, the typical assailant, faced with the choice of shooting up a church where all are unarmed, vs. a church known to have armed security would almost always choose the unarmed congregation on which to visit his destruction.
At least in this country, I doubt many would promote wholesale slaughter. The point is stopping an attack before it happens.
The advertising of ‘gun free zones’ at schools etc. makes those locations a magnet for purveyors of mayhem.
It might take only a sign declaring that ‘God has provided a sword of righteousness to the occupants of the church, and they are prepared to wield it as necessary,’ to discourage some idiot with a black heart from entering.
I used to attend services at Dr. Gene Scott’s church. Dr. Scott had received threats. He protected himself and his congregation. There was a sign out front declaring it was not a public meeting. And reservations were required to enter. I have no doubt some of the ushers carried weapons. I always felt safe there.
If word gets out the worshipers are prepared to defend themselves, odds would be they would never have to do anything but worship.
As for your Nigerian friend, that is a much more complicated question. I cannot pretend to have an answer.
Thank you for the intelligent and multi-faceted examination of this issue which, unfortunately, is becoming a common topic of discussion.