Does shooting to kill make sense?
Many of us are familiar with the news and youtube videos of soldiers in Iraq killing downed rebels after they no longer appear to be a threat. The news media usually uses these videos to back their case of an immoral war.
However, my opinion, is that shooting to kill in a wartime situation makes sense. If the rebel were to live then they would be placed in a prison camp for a short period of time and then be released eventually to kill again.
During World War II and other conflicts this did happen quite frequently. Even during current times it happens with a great frequency. Many rebels released from prison camps soon find themselves behind an AK shooting at American soldiers.
In home burglary situations, if you simply wound the home invader then there is a strong chance they will come back in some form. The invader will be placed in a jail for a time and then when they get out it will be back to the same neighborhood for similiar antics. It might not be against your household, but someone else's household and who knows who they might get next.
I know that shooting to kill goes against conventional, legal and moral sense, however, does it make any sense. Obviously, certain soldiers have made the decision that it does make sense and do it despite of the legal consequences that might fall upon them.
If bullets were shot at myself, then I would definately return that fire without regard for the individual who is shooting at myself. That makes perfect sense in my world. Firing one or two bullets then sitting to wait and observe if the combatant is going to fire more does not make sense to me.