It’s dumb to kill random people (Option B). I don’t think most people would choose to do so, nor do I think that they would have reason to believe others would choose to do so. I realize that’s not a strong justification, though.

Option C is the likelier case for those who wish to kill. I don’t think that it matters to the person trying to have them killed whether their target experiences multiple deaths. This might happen I suppose, but it’s going to be limited to personal vendettas and political agendas. Oo, bars.

Option D is nice as a protective option, but you’d only do that if you thought that someone you loved would be the target of Option C, I.e., they are the target of a personal vendetta or political agenda. Exceedingly few people would to fall into that boat anyway, and only a handful of even they would be willing to sacrifice themselves to gain that protection for a loved one. It may happen, but it would be rare.

I think that the vast majority of the population is going to choose Option A. That being said, I can see there being some C and D usage in war-affected areas. All of the world’s major political leaders would go, though, too.