Ah, the curiously named "atavistic" did bring out one thing I may have not made clear: when talking about "arguing your point in favor of things like helping pe

Ah, the curiously named "atavistic" did bring out one thing I may have not made clear: when talking about "arguing your point in favor of things like helping people bleed out faster, because we're trying to "save lives" here", one idea is that the target is indeed a "bad guy", and the sooner that bad guy is stopped, the fewer (additional) people he will wound or kill. This is often critical for a "good guy" in close combat with one or more "bad guys", and generally particularly critical in the politically motivated hostage situations which prompted the discussion, where killing the hostages is a frequently desired eventual outcome of the "bad guys". Which in my opinion definitively makes them "bad guys", to the point of my not being in the least upset at those higher ups who give sub rosa orders that they'd prefer none of the hostage takers survive. The point you make is also strong, very frequently so in hostage taking situations, which is one reason good police snipers train obsessively. Important enough that I brought it up in my first paragraph of exposition in this discussion, as well as in, say, a recent one on the quality of the firearms leadership of NYC police, who for a long while saddled their men with FMJ bullets, to the determent of everyone but the self-satisfied and grossly ignorant anointed.