Apparently, there are a few firearms instructors in the U.S. recommending that, in a self-defense situation, after you have stopped the threat, you should fire an anchor shot, too.
Now, if you’re not familiar with the concept of an anchor shot, what this means is that, after stopping the threat, you put a bullet in their brain to permanently stop them from doing anything.
If you said, “Huh?,” you’re not the only one.
Remember, the only time that you are justified in shooting another person is to prevent or stop imminent bodily harm to yourself or others. Once the threat has been stopped, you aren’t justified in further shots in the attacker’s direction because the threat has already been stopped.
I’m not the only one calling foul on the idea of anchor shots, though. Respected firearms commentator and instructor, Massad Ayoob, also has some thoughts on this kind of thing which should help to clarify it. You can watch that video below.
Now, as Ayoob points out, there have been situations in which a person taking anchor shots has been let off the hook legally.
In the example that he gave, maybe that was because the person was in gun friendly Texas. I’m not sure that I would bet that you’d get off the legal hook if you tried that in a state like Oregon.
And while the grand jury ruled that the guy in Texas wasn’t guilty of a crime, he still had to live with the aftermath of the media blitz in his life and the legal expenses from the year that he had to deal with the legal side of things.
Of course, those are all really secondary issues in that, if the threat is no longer a threat, you don’t have a good moral reason to keep shooting the attacker. We’re legal gun owners, not murderers looking for an excuse to off people.
Let’s remember why we carry. It’s to protect people, not because we want to kill people who are no longer a threat.