I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats.

No.

While certainly true, I don't need that fact to be true to demonstrate the more important point. I elect not to support that point. For this discussion, you are free to consider that a concession.

The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.

This was the first line of my initial response to you. There is no moral or ethical dilemma with using deadly force to stop a deadly attack.

I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.

You've got it backwards. The law on justifiable homicide arises from moral and ethical grounds: It is morally and ethically permissible to use deadly force against an attacker. It is not morally or ethically permissible to punish a victim for killing their attacker. Those two points demand a narrow exception to the general rule that "killing is wrong". The laws on self defense and justifiable homicide reflect the morality and ethicality of using deadly force on an attacker.

Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a "killing", at least for purposes of denouncing the use of the tool used to cause their death. Conflating the deaths of attackers with the deaths of victims is deceitful, immoral and unethical.