See, this is why I don't get along with most gun people. And i'm not picking on your in particular, because I have heard varying statements that all mean the same thing "finish the job", "shoot to kill", "don't let him get up", etc etc.
Look, as a means of self defense, all I'm trying to do is get the attacker off me, and make sure my life is no longer in danger. I don't get why people take that as KILL KILL KILL. I'll be honest, if someone came after me and I put two or three rounds in him, and that got him on the floor and incapacitated until help arrived, I'm just fine with that. Given the choice, I think I would much rather not live with someone else's death on my conscience if I don't absolutely 100% have to.
Am I wrong in my thinking here?
I was taught two center mass if that doesn't stop the assailant then one to the head. This is standard issue Police training as well. I NEVER want to have to use my gun. However if I ever HAVE to, this is the protocol I follow if they stop after the first two...the situation is done. There have been many situations where someone shot a criminal in self defense then ended up paying for medical bills, salary lost...etc...because the criminal did survive. Depends on your state however if this is a worry. Inside my home, no worries. Outside my home...it is possible for a lawsuit to stick. This is why many say shoot to kill. Because society on many occasions has deemed the criminal's loss higher than the threat that was reflected on to the "victim". Some people automatically side with whoever got shot and see them as the victim and thus sympathize with them and ignore the FACT they were engaging in criminal activity that put them in that situation.