Sorry, but I can't agree with that. And our court system does not agree with that either.no such thing as shoot to stop. A gun is a weapon of deadly force. If you shoot you shoot to kill.
The issue at hand is your intent. Your intent in using deadly force for self defense is not to kill the perp -- your intent is to stop his attack. If his attack stops, then you stop. There are many possible ways the attack could stop. He may die or he may not, but his death is not your goal.
Suppose I am attacked by an armed perp and am in fear of my life. What are some of the possibilities that could happen when I draw my gun in response? If the perp sees my gun and suddenly decides to be elsewhere, I don't shoot. No shots fired and the attack was stopped.
Perhaps I draw my gun, fire and miss, but the perp decides to run away. Shots fired, no one injured and the attack was stopped.
Perhaps I draw my gun, fire and hit the perp, he's still on his feet but drops his gun and gives up. 1 shot fired, perp is still alive, and the attack was stopped.
Perhaps I draw my gun, fire and hit the perp multiple times, he collapses into unconsciousness. Multiple shots fired, perp in critical condition, attack was stopped.
In all these scenarios, the perp lived and I have to stop shooting. My training has been to shoot at the center of the chest or head. It is quite possible that such a shot or shots will kill the perpetrator. But that is not my intent. My intent is simply to stop the attack and shooting at those targets is most likely to stop the attack quickly.
In addition, here in the US 80% of people shot with a handgun survive.
Don't expect that just because you have shot someone once that he will immediately stop his attack and/or die. He might, or he might not. About 10 years ago an off-duty LAPD officer was shot from behind with a .357 Mag. The shot lodged in her heart. She turned, returned fire, killed the attacker, and survived. She returned to duty after a long convalescence.