I hear about people that say in a self-defense situation you should shoot someone in the leg or the arm, instead of “center of mass”. There’s many reasons for it, but in the end it’s just not sound reasoning. If someone needs shooting, then they need effective shooting. If they don’t need shooting, they don’t need shooting. So if push comes to shove and you must shoot, you need to shoot at the most effective target (e.g., “center of mass”) and not at some less-effective area like a leg.
I came across this article at Force Science News that discusses the situation in-depth. It approaches it from a police officer standpoint, which is a different situation than a private citizen defending themselves, but it doesn’t take away from the point of the article that shooting to wound doesn’t make sense.
Stuff From Hsoi 
I agree, and came to a similar conclusion when thinking about it. In order to have a justifiable defensive shooting, you are going to have to show that you basically HAD to shoot to stop the threat.
I do understand why some people might suggest this approach, but then you have to press and challenge their notion to demonstrate it really isn’t sound strategy. I like that article because it discusses not just the “tactical” aspect, but also the scientific and legal implications. Legal may be the last one on your mind, but it could end up having the biggest implications.