If you shoot a coyote with fine shot from a handgun, you are more likely to do either nothing or to handicap it for hunting it's normal prey. Making it turn to easier prey. Pets etc. A handicapped , starving animal is much much more dangerous. {Not less dangerous , and there is no lesson learned} A injured , starving animal is not something you would wish to have in you area . Either Kill or don't Kill. There is no half way. If you are going to kill, do it clean and quick. Don't wound.
The assumption here is an attack on a human. Normal hunting ethics do not apply. Any wound to the attacking animal is ethical. Obviously mortal wounds are more effective. But if a coyote attacks and you manage to wound it with a 22 or bird shot or a stick only to have it die later then that is no moral issue. I'd still prefer a defense that will absolutely stop the animal. But when the attack (by an animal) makes it "them or me" there are no further questions of hunting ethics. Notice that I specifically mentioned animals. Human attackers are still considered to have some moral and legal protections. I'm not trying to drag them into this discussion.
Last edited: