Why did Vasquel not do the final job differently?

He only had two bullets. The third bullet was used on Gene Barry when he lunged towards him. I think Vasquel's character and heroism was remarkable, caring about the elderly couple not having to go through the horrors of what the tribe would have done to them.

A remarkable character.

The gun looked like a .38 special. The relatiely low velocity loads in use at the time may not have done the trick with one bullet. And, traveling by himself, he might even have had a chance to escape. As I recall, this is still an open question at the end of the film.

Actually, he also had a more gruesome option available. Instead of using the gun, he could have chucked them into the running prop of the plane before it departed, and done the same himself.

It works (A relative of mine actually witnessed this kind of accident with this exact type of airplane) and wouldn't harm the engine).

Would have been very fast and painless... gruesome I know, but what if they didn't have the gun?

Thanks for thinking of the rest of us, genius, and not mentioning *****SPOILERS***** in your subject line!

He also shoots from a few feet away for cinematic purposes, when he admits to being a bad shot.

He was tormented by his past. He judged himself deserving of an execution.

There was a final shot of his anguish after killing the old couple. This spoke to the irony of his last act as a reformed man being yet another "murder".

You put too much thought into the final scene in the wrong way.

Gee, who thinks like that? Criminals usually aren't trying to kill people with compassion so I doubt being 'streetwise' would have given him any ideas about the best way to kill them. Besides, Vasquel was supposed to be a political activist killer who didn't even know how to shoot a gun as opposed to your run-of-the-mill street thug who is used to a life of crime and shooting random people.

The fact you came up with that scenario is what's a little disturbing; though, if I'm honest I considered other possibilities too. I suppose to some Vasquel comes across as heroic but, in his position, I don't know if I would be able to do the same. I can certainly imagine myself killing in self defense or to protect another person but not as a mercy killing. There's also no guarantee shooting someone once would kill them. It could just cause more suffering and a prolonged painful death or suffering followed by capture and then who knows what.

What I wondered was why using the gun was the only answer. For one thing, when the guy who had been watching the child (I forget the character's name) was shot with the poison dart, someone said to stand back presumably handling the dart would transfer the poison. That seemed to be a quick death. They also had a lake or water source. The two younger women washed clothes and fought in it. That seems a more certain death than a shooting.

Vasquel would have had to stand a lot closer and shot the couple in an area that would mean certain fatality. It's a little odd that the group struggled to survive but finding ways to die was equally difficult.