I swear to HIM that this statement should be said LOUDLY more often.
Sheeeesh! People out in Cactus Junction are getting careless with their firearms!
Getting hurt by their own firearms.
SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT OWN GUNS.
It’s a sad but truism.
We may never know what we will truly do until that situation arises.
But we can Train…That we can do.
We need to remove the warning labels and make it illegal to sue someone because of stupidity.
If they are stupid they are not going to read the warning labels anyway.
Thank you for the affirmation. That means, contrary to some, I am not stupid. 
For the record, if absolutely necessary Id have no issue using deadly force, my question was more geared at if the choice to put a couple rounds in their upper legs befor putting one or two in their chest. If time permitted.
Chances are realistically as others mentioned Id naturally want to end the harmful threat asap, although much can happen in 5 seconds using a semi auto matic
for others, If I was military then there is no shoot to wound concept.
“Shoot to Wound” is a military concept. If you wound an opponent on the battlefield, one or two of his buddies will stop fighting in order to get him off the battlefield, therefore decreasing the number of people in the battle. Home Defense/Self Defense situations are Close Quarters Battles (CQB) and are different stories all together. In CQB, your opponents are not going to be concerned about getting the injured out of harm’s way. They only want to stop you from advancing. Your mindset needs to stop them from advancing.
With a firearm, any use is use of a lethal weapon. The DA won’t care if you “shot to wound” or “shot to neutralize”. We never “shoot to kill” in self-defense. If the perp dies due to your self-defense actions, that’s on him/her, and not your fault; the perp chose you to be the victim.
Shooting to wound may not result in wounding, as holes in one’s body will result in bleeding, and if you do manage a shot that only “wounds”, where is that bullet going after hitting the perp? Shooting the arm will not likely end the threat, and hitting the artery can still quickly kill; same for the leg, and hitting that artery will kill more quickly, within minutes.
The most important issue is that we can only use lethal force in limited circumstances, such as imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, stopping a felony crime against oneself, home invasion, etc. “Shooting to wound” implies no imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, etc., and therefore use of lethal force, aka use of a firearm or other deadly implement, would likely be illegal.
We use situational awareness to avoid potential threats to self. The best way to win the fight, is to not be there. If no other options, fight to win is a must. ”Wounding” is no guarantee of stopping the threat, it may even escalate it.
In hand-to-hand, one is still not seeking “wounding”, but debilitating the attacker so that he/she can no longer assault you; break bones, dislocate joints, gouge eyes, stomp feet, groin kicks, sternum
strikes, strikes to ears, nose, eyes, throat, etc., anything you can do to stop the threat.
The time is what dictates your actions. If you know definition of imminent and immediate you realize that you have no time to stop the threat by aiming in small target. Center mass keeps you safe once processed by justice system.
It might be hard to explain how you were able to manage precise shot in small target being in imminent / immediate danger.
On a side not. The way to stop deadly force before it becomes deadly force is with a hug.
That is a very good point, my thinking was considering the ability to deescalate the threat showing to the court the intention was not overly excessive, unless obviously warranted.
Shooting to wound could also end with the good guy in hot water after the fact. If you shoot to wound to stop the threat, the bad guy’s attorney could use that against you, and you could be liable for ALL the bad guy’s injuries. If you train to target a leg or arm, it could be determined you practiced that because you are mentally unstable or some BS like that. Like you WANTED to cause him harm, so you practiced.
Please, please, please take a class from Brian Hill of Complete Combatant, John Murphy from FPF Training, or any Rangemaster class you can get into, before you continue down this thought path.
You are making some potentially deadly unstated assumptions about skills and reactions of people with only basic firearms training when in a high stress situation, and both attacker and victim.target are in motion.
If someone is shooting (or just about to shoot) at you and you hit them in the leg, they are going to continue shooting at you.
Oh please, please, please try that. 
I believe that’s how you get your a$$ kicked. Unwanted physical contact will end very badly.
I think I’ll follow the conventional wisdom of maintaining distance, even leaving the area if possible.
Hugs only work when one senses that is what the person needs. Sometimes that is all someone needs to stop them from thinking about getting violent.
Sometimes just a smile works.
I think the proper question should be.
When confronted with a physical threat “What threat level is the aggressor capable of?”
If the aggressor has demonstrated a threat of great physical injury or death, my actions will be to stop that from happening immediately. The aggressor has dictated the terms and I will respond accordingly.
Period. End of story.
Thank you Craig for your helpful input.
I was just asking the question, many people gave me very good information as well.
Basically, Make sure the threat is real and life threatening therefore justifying a deadly force action.
Stopping shot == smaller more difficult target to hit. Torso shot == larger target easier to hit.
Stopping shot may not stop/disable the threat and danger still exists. Torso shot more likely to stop/disable the threat.
A life/death situation is not the same has range target practice. There’s not going to be a lot of time to pick/choose a target. If you choose wrong you may not get to make another choice.
Welcome Kenneth363.
Interesting post. Made me think, if such a rare emergency, just how important and valuable that first shot is, and what if the circumstances only allowed for the one shot.
