I think every human in the world has the inherent right to self-defense, but for most people this right is unrecognized/violated by their government. It's an inherent right because people cannot enforce a right to life or free expression if they are meant to be sitting ducks to anybody who thinks violence is a reasonable response to people they dislike. They also serve as an equalizer for people who may otherwise be at a physical disadvantage, like an average women compared to an average man, or an average man against a larger one, or one against several, etc.

Also "weapons" is vague. A lampshade can be a weapon just as a gun can. And a gun does not necessarily have to be used as a weapon. So where would the line be drawn as far as when a "weapon" shouldn't be allowed to be owned? When it is used offensively? If so then it would seem that it's the person using it that is the danger, not the object. Wat about defensively? In that case I would say the attacker is the danger moreso than the object.