This is not valid. You posit that if I attack you, I do so under the
"threat" that you will defend yourself. If I decided that you defending
yourself was a significant threat to my attack, then the proper term would
be "deterrent" (assuming basically rational players). A deterrent is
simply a "defensive threat" that is of significance to the attacker.
Obviously when applied to government, individuals do not possess a
deterrent capability since, at best, they represent a non-significant
defensive threat to the government.
When the government is involved, individuals may represent a "threat", but
never a "deterrent". In a social interaction, there is *always* someone
who can kick the aggressor's ass.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com