Those 85% who correctly answered "Yes," and the right answer is indeed "Yes," are protectors of their family.

Those 5% who answered "No, never," obviously have some genetic defect, the same kind of callous defect that enables a mother to drive her five kids into a cold lake to drown them.

As for the 10% who answered "No, if it means killing a human shield," are confused - I don't think they realize they are placing a higher value on the lives of their enemies than on the lives of their own family. They somehow believe this question is an intellectual exercise about morality - it is not. If this is not a genetic defect, there is certainly something mentally wrong, perhaps from a faulty upbringing.

In response to my article The Sixth Commandment is Not About Killing, a reader suggests that perhaps one can defend one's family by taking out the person's kneecaps instead of killing him. This reader is not thinking clearly: let me put the question this way: "A man-eating tiger is on the loose, it has already torn to shreds another human being, it now darts for you and your family. You have a rifle with the capacity to kill the beast - do you aim for its kneecaps or do you go for the heart?

Answer honestly.

• If you decide to go for the tiger's kneecaps, then there is something wrong with you mentally, morally, and genetically since even a highly trained Navy Seal marksman would not take the chance that he might miss and get himself or his family mauled.
• If you rightly go for the heart, then you answered correctly on how to defend oneself against savage animals. You should answer likewise for savage animals disguised as humans. Any other answer is morally wrong and I certainly would not want you to be my parent or the parent of any child.