I want to answer the OP:
1. as mentioned before the "turn the other cheek" is about not seeking revenge, not about self defense.
2. many use the US as a negative example of civilian gun ownership, but most countries with civilian gun ownership show that gun ownership and violence are not correlated. For example, the safest country in Europe is Switzerland, and Switzerland has the highest gun ownership in Europe.
3. Australian culture is very anti-gun, and there is a lot of anti-gun propaganda there that is just plain deceptive. For example, anti-gun people will often use the very misleading statistic of "gun deaths" to prove that countries with guns are more unsafe. Of course a country with guns will have more gun deaths than countries without! That's as silly as saying that a hospital is more dangerous because more people die in them. The RIGHT statistic is to look at raw homicide rates: if a country has guns - the question is, is the overall homicide rate higher in that country compared with countries without guns? Here's the answer to that question:
These statistics are taken from a gun control website - so no-one can accuse these statistics as being wrong.
4. The Australian massacre death rate since 1996 is 3 times higher than Canada, even though Canada has 50% more people. Why is that when about 1/4 of Canadian homes has a gun? The answer is because Australians are a more violent people and Australian crazy people use predominantly arson for massacres, which is a far more destructive mass casualty weapon. In fact in Xiamen, China - a person used gasoline to kill 47 people - almost twice as many as Sandy Hook:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiamen_bus_fire
5. How do you stop Australians and Chinese from using arson to kill people? Ban gasoline? Ban matches? The answer to this question will show how foolish it is to ban guns. The fact that you're okay with a policeman or farmer to have a gun, shows that you inherently believe that there are GOOD uses for guns. Why does a policeman have a gun? it's not, as you think, to protect you. It is for SELF defense! Protection is necessarily a PROACTIVE duty - you will have to stand guard like a President's bodyguard to "protect". Do you have a policeman standing outside your door? Of course not! A policeman can only react to violence when it's already happened. So if you understand in your mind, that a policeman carries a gun primarily for self defense and a policeman is the "right" person to own a gun, then you understand that people who also need to defend others: like parents, are the "right" people to own a gun.
6. Guns are neither good nor bad. They are used by good people for good things (protection of life) or bad people for bad things. Judging by all the gang-related gun violence in Australia, you surely realize by now that bad guys can get guns as surely as they can get drugs (also banned!). When you ban guns, the only people who are made impotent are law-abiding citizens. The balance of power shifts to the criminals because they by definition will not follow laws. Does that make sense to do? Of course not! It's pure idiocy to disempower yourself and other GOOD people so that criminals can have more power. Yet people who are afraid of guns are not motivated by logic - but by emotion, and fear is a powerful emotion, and this causes people afraid of guns to become victimized by the very things they fear: because they advocate disempowering themselves of the only tool that can counter evil: a firearm.
7. Anti-gun people like to suggest a lot of ridiculous anti-gun self defense tactics - none of which these same people expect the police (professionals) to follow when they dial 911 (or 000 in Australia). Does it make sense that an anti-gun person's #1 plan when in mortal danger is to call people armed with guns to save them? Idiocy! Do you see the break in logic in anti-gun thinking?
8. Case in point: Sandy Hook. Anti-gun people focus on the 26 people killed by an AR15 by Adam Lanza. But they forgot the 100 cops who came with AR15s to save the 1000 kids. So are AR15s good or bad? Did they kill 26 people or save 1000? You see the stupidity in blaming an object? The problem has NEVER been about more guns or less guns, or guns are bad or guns are good. This issue is about making sure the RIGHT person has a gun, and the WRONG person doesn't have a gun. The parent protecting their child is the RIGHT person to own a gun, and if you fight to deny that parent the right to defend his family then YOU are responsible for anything that happens to that family. Can you be responsible for that?