He tells Peter to put his sword back, saying that it should never be used.

That simply isn't true. He says to put it back in its place because those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. In essence, if you use harsh means against people you can expect harsh means to be used against you. In this context if Peter uses deadly force in defense of Jesus, Jesus and his followers can expect deadly force to be used against them.

This is NOT the same as commanding that it never be used. Such edicts are fairly easy to discern within the Bible, and I'm sure you can think of some examples of "thou shalt not".

Who have you seen make that theological point? He calls the people thieves, not animals.

Not the point I was referring to, I was talking about the imagery of driving them out as a shepherd may drive animals. It refers back to the numerous allegories of Jesus and his "flock" as well as being symbolic of firm corrective guidance.

And there is still no evidence that Jesus ever taught anything to the contrary.

.

"And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages," - Luke 3:14

In this case Jesus is directly asked by people employed in a position which requires violence what they should do. Jesus tells them to behave lawfully and to be content with their wages.

If we were talking about prohibition of blood transfusions, and a transfusion technician asked Jesus what they should do and Jesus replied "Be honest in your record keeping and be content with your pay," we could be confident that Jesus wasn't categorically opposed to blood transfusions or he would have said something. To argue that Jesus didn't explicitly address the matter of transfusions in his advice would be fucking bullshit and you know it. In a similar way your above claim is obviously false.