I agree on the common misunderstanding about what less lethal options exist, but the justification is often misunderstood. Rather, any potentially lethal force

I agree on the common misunderstanding about what less lethal options exist, but the justification is often misunderstood. Rather, any potentially lethal force can only be used if there is a grave, immediate threat, and in this case the shooter ought to be compelled to take the most reliable action: shooting for the center of mass and attempting to fully disable the target. Shooting limbs is often not immediately disabling, and therefore wouldn't be an effective way of dealing with a life-or-death threat. Likewise, shooting for the head is rarely done by nonspecialists simply because it decreases the chance for success (not because the shooter wants to "give the target a chance to survive"). So you're right that if someone thought shooting limbs never resulted in death, they might mistakenly think it was an appropriate non-lethal option. But I think, in fact, most people are aware death is possible. It's just that they mistakenly reason that if limbs shots are less likely to kill then they ought to be a preferable method for disabling a target.