A lot of people get confused talking about this.
A defender should generally* shoot at the largest part of the attacker's body that can be seen ("center of mass," which is usually the center of the attacker's chest). The defender should generally keep pulling the trigger until the attacker has stopped doing whatever he was doing that made the defender shoot him in the first place. If the attacker doesn't stop after at least a few rounds have hit him in the center of his chest, the defender might instead shoot for the attacker's head, or perhaps his pelvis. All this activity frequently results in the attacker's death ... too bad, so sorry, but that's the way it is.**
When the defender deliberately shoots at the center of the attacker's chest, the reasonably expected outcome is that the attacker will probably die from it. Nevertheless, the shortcut phrase "shoot to kill" is a really, really, really, really bad way to think about this, because its usage can lead you to make some very bad mistakes.
First, legally and (in many cases) morally, the defender must stop shooting when the attacker stops being a threat. Casual or repeated use of the phrase "shoot to kill" can damage the defender's prior mindset and cripple the defender's ability to do the Right Thing under extreme stress.
Second, as others have pointed out above, using "shoot to kill" in casual conversation can really come back and bite you in the behind if you ever end up in court. With a good lawyer you might manage to overcome this, but why muddy the waters? Better to have a good shoot that looks clean too; it'll save you some money in lawyer bills.
Third, thinking in terms of "shoot to wound" vs "shoot to kill" allows people to fool themselves into believing that they can use a firearm without risk of death or permanent disabling damage to the person they shot. This is not true. Legally and practically, any time you fire a weapon at another human being -- no matter where on the other person's body you aim! -- you are using deadly force. You do not want to weaken your resolve to use this deadly force only when utterly necessary, nor do you want your brain tricking you into believing you are doing anything except using deadly force when you pull a gun. You certainly don't want to end up in court trying to explain that you didn't mean to kill the guy and wouldn't have shot if you'd known it would kill him. If you aren't fully prepared for the possibility of killing the person you're shooting, you should not be shooting at them. Period, full stop.
And finally, even if it never comes up in court, the phrase "shoot to kill" is simply bad PR for our side. Most reasonably articulate people can get exactly the same concept across to anybody who needs to know it, without sounding like a bloodthirsty fool or a violent vigilante.
pax
* "Generally" means just that; it's a rule of thumb rather than an absolute. Of course there are exceptions, situations in which you might prefer that the attacker live rather than die or situations in which the only possible shot is one that is also unlikely to kill the attacker. In such cases, some folks use the phrase "shoot to wound." This verbal shortcut describes both point of aim and intended outcome -- two things which are congruent with each other only when Murphy and Lady Luck both agree.
** Some macho types apparently believe that avoiding the phrase "shoot to kill" somehow means that one isn't mentally or emotionally prepared to kill if necessary. While untrue in most cases, it is true that some people keep a gun for defense but never, ever consider that they could literally kill another person with that gun. If you aren't willing to kill in order to save your own life or the lives of those you love, you should not be carrying a gun. It's that simple.
A defender should generally* shoot at the largest part of the attacker's body that can be seen ("center of mass," which is usually the center of the attacker's chest). The defender should generally keep pulling the trigger until the attacker has stopped doing whatever he was doing that made the defender shoot him in the first place. If the attacker doesn't stop after at least a few rounds have hit him in the center of his chest, the defender might instead shoot for the attacker's head, or perhaps his pelvis. All this activity frequently results in the attacker's death ... too bad, so sorry, but that's the way it is.**
When the defender deliberately shoots at the center of the attacker's chest, the reasonably expected outcome is that the attacker will probably die from it. Nevertheless, the shortcut phrase "shoot to kill" is a really, really, really, really bad way to think about this, because its usage can lead you to make some very bad mistakes.
First, legally and (in many cases) morally, the defender must stop shooting when the attacker stops being a threat. Casual or repeated use of the phrase "shoot to kill" can damage the defender's prior mindset and cripple the defender's ability to do the Right Thing under extreme stress.
Second, as others have pointed out above, using "shoot to kill" in casual conversation can really come back and bite you in the behind if you ever end up in court. With a good lawyer you might manage to overcome this, but why muddy the waters? Better to have a good shoot that looks clean too; it'll save you some money in lawyer bills.
Third, thinking in terms of "shoot to wound" vs "shoot to kill" allows people to fool themselves into believing that they can use a firearm without risk of death or permanent disabling damage to the person they shot. This is not true. Legally and practically, any time you fire a weapon at another human being -- no matter where on the other person's body you aim! -- you are using deadly force. You do not want to weaken your resolve to use this deadly force only when utterly necessary, nor do you want your brain tricking you into believing you are doing anything except using deadly force when you pull a gun. You certainly don't want to end up in court trying to explain that you didn't mean to kill the guy and wouldn't have shot if you'd known it would kill him. If you aren't fully prepared for the possibility of killing the person you're shooting, you should not be shooting at them. Period, full stop.
And finally, even if it never comes up in court, the phrase "shoot to kill" is simply bad PR for our side. Most reasonably articulate people can get exactly the same concept across to anybody who needs to know it, without sounding like a bloodthirsty fool or a violent vigilante.
pax
* "Generally" means just that; it's a rule of thumb rather than an absolute. Of course there are exceptions, situations in which you might prefer that the attacker live rather than die or situations in which the only possible shot is one that is also unlikely to kill the attacker. In such cases, some folks use the phrase "shoot to wound." This verbal shortcut describes both point of aim and intended outcome -- two things which are congruent with each other only when Murphy and Lady Luck both agree.
** Some macho types apparently believe that avoiding the phrase "shoot to kill" somehow means that one isn't mentally or emotionally prepared to kill if necessary. While untrue in most cases, it is true that some people keep a gun for defense but never, ever consider that they could literally kill another person with that gun. If you aren't willing to kill in order to save your own life or the lives of those you love, you should not be carrying a gun. It's that simple.
just the way some people think about killing someone so..what's that word i'm looking for..mhmmm.