Is this phrasing annoying anyone else?

With many instances of firearm use making headlines recently, and the surrounding discussion, I have several times seen the phrase "shoot to kill" used. "Shoot to kill" is a phrase that should apply to hunters, snipers, and assassins. These professions are shooting a target to kill it. Civilians involved in DGUs and police should be "shooting to stop a threat". That may end up being lethal for the target, but it isn't the intent.I am NOT advocating BS "shoot them in the leg" stuff.I am NOT advocating "shoot once and see".What I am saying is that in a self defense shooting you put rounds into center mass of a target until there is no longer a threat to you. That may be lethal, or it may not be. The point of a DGU should be to stop/remove a threat.There are legal and personal ramifications to a DGU. Phrases like "shoot to kill" are both legally and morally indefensible. They are the kind of utterance that can turn a DGU from a "good shoot" to a situation where someone is convicted for defending themselves.Is this just a pet peeve that no one else cares about or does this phrasing bother anyone else? via /r/CCW https://ift.tt/35ib5pi