Stopping the attack for me means, if, the threat is such I have no time to offer them an opportunity to surrender, I am going to take a shot that is amied at center mass using the shotgun or pistol most available, and loaded with ammunition that is certain to do it's job, even if it should result in the death of an armed criminal.
But I also live in a state that puts the burden of proof on LE, not the potential victim. Prior to our changes in SD laws in my state, if was an iffy situation in which LE did put the burden of proof upon the victim. Stand your ground comes to mind, and castle doctrin. I am by no means an expert, but since the changes have been made to our SD laws in my state, I have inquired, and been fully advised by an attorney that represents both the state and defense entities regarding where we stand as potential victims and lethal force. Now with these changes in place, it is not even necessary that a threat be armed with any weapon, but that if they refuse to back off or other wise retreat we are within our legal right to utilize lethal deadly force. Expert legal advice trumps a general opinion that may likely be based on old SD laws, or those of a less conservative entity. Bottom line, when my life, or that of a loved one is in danger of being physically harmed, I am not going to have any consideration for the degree of physical damage my firearm or ammunition may inflict, other than to say it will be of such degree to stop the threat with confidence.
GS