AlwaysVigilant
Marksman
Shoot to kill is more accurate actually, hence the term "deadly force". I am not aware of any law or language in one that says anything resembling "if responding to a situation that merits the use of deadly force one must shoot only to stop the threat." or anything close to that verbiage. Why not? Because it isn't practical. Technically that could mean shoot the weapon out of the hand or some other such nonsense...though that is just as ridiculous an argument. I think its understood as a practical matter, but lets be realistic...
You first shots should always be to do the most damage possible. That is why we aim center mass, CNS, and the ocular triangle in the face. Aiming for these areas has one purpose. You can say its to stop the threat, and you would be accurate, and likely by way of death. I made the point earlier that it might not kill someone. Fine, as long as they aren't fighting anymore.
Your example is ridiculous. Shooting to kill doesn't imply anything of the sort, and I certainly didn't indicate anything close to that in my post.
My point is quite simply this: If you discharge your weapon to defend life or serious bodily harm, be efficient and aim at the targets that will "stop the threat" quickly...Kill shots. The assailant might die, they might not. Not something I am going to worry about or lose sleep over.
I don't like confusing people with terminology that gets in the way of action. I care about the guy who is being attacked and defending himself, and want him to win the engagement. If you are fighting for your life, do what must be done. Train that way. Remove the indecision from your mind and make peace with the fact that you might have to kill someone someday. Pray about it, talk to survivors, interview people who have been there. Do whatever you have to do to be prepared, or don't carry a weapon.
Sorry, for the rant. Its not meant to be confrontational. I just worry about some of the things people learn about self defense, and the fear it sometimes ingrains.
