What the heck is a "social" shotgun?
- Thread starter HouTex
- Start date
Poodleshooter
New member
Since an "unsocial" shotgun would be one pointed in my general direction, I guess an "social" shotgun would be one pointed away from me? 
Sorry had to do that....
Sorry had to do that....Doc Hudson
New member
Re: "social" guns
These are guns used for serious social interaction between homeowners and burglars, and between honest citizens and criminals.
It is nothing more than a smart alleck way to say defensive gun of whatever type you want to discuss.
Doc Hudson
These are guns used for serious social interaction between homeowners and burglars, and between honest citizens and criminals.
It is nothing more than a smart alleck way to say defensive gun of whatever type you want to discuss.
Doc Hudson
Dfariswheel
New member
It means a device used to facilitate crisis management in close range interpersonel relationships.
It's a word gun rags have been using for years
as a supposedly witty way of saying "defensive" or
"tactical". I think it is idiotic and should not
be used. This is a serious topic. Some humor is
ok, but a shooting is not a social interaction. It
is in fact the ultimate anti-social interaction.
It is what happens when someone decides to abandon
society, and force someone else to use lethal force
as a response. There is nothing social about this,
and for gun rags to talk about "serious social
situations" makes non-gun owners think we have a very
screwed up idea of what a "social situation" is, and
maybe that we are not really a part of society.
People should think about what they say and what
image it projects, particularly to other people
(non gun-owners) who already find guns scary. Gun owners
should also look inside themselves and ask themselves
how they really feel about possibly shooting another
human being.
The right word is "defensive", because the only time
you would ever shoot someone is in self-defense. Other
possible words are "combat" or "tactical", but "defensive" is
a lot better PR, don't you think? Using the word "social"
is just idiotic.
I wish gun rags and gun shows would clean up their
image. I get the impression that a lot of gun owners
get a kick out of shocking liberals. I know, I understand
the feeling, but we should keep it in check, and instead
get a kick out of welcoming, educating, and including
liberals. It's a subtler pleasure, but in the long
run, it will be much more rewarding.
as a supposedly witty way of saying "defensive" or
"tactical". I think it is idiotic and should not
be used. This is a serious topic. Some humor is
ok, but a shooting is not a social interaction. It
is in fact the ultimate anti-social interaction.
It is what happens when someone decides to abandon
society, and force someone else to use lethal force
as a response. There is nothing social about this,
and for gun rags to talk about "serious social
situations" makes non-gun owners think we have a very
screwed up idea of what a "social situation" is, and
maybe that we are not really a part of society.
People should think about what they say and what
image it projects, particularly to other people
(non gun-owners) who already find guns scary. Gun owners
should also look inside themselves and ask themselves
how they really feel about possibly shooting another
human being.
The right word is "defensive", because the only time
you would ever shoot someone is in self-defense. Other
possible words are "combat" or "tactical", but "defensive" is
a lot better PR, don't you think? Using the word "social"
is just idiotic.
I wish gun rags and gun shows would clean up their
image. I get the impression that a lot of gun owners
get a kick out of shocking liberals. I know, I understand
the feeling, but we should keep it in check, and instead
get a kick out of welcoming, educating, and including
liberals. It's a subtler pleasure, but in the long
run, it will be much more rewarding.
Doc Hudson
New member
But Zoosh,
You must admit, a describing social use of a shotgun is far less inflamitory than using a more honest term.
Such as vermin iradication.
Doc Hudson,
You must admit, a describing social use of a shotgun is far less inflamitory than using a more honest term.
Such as vermin iradication.
Doc Hudson,
Double Naught Spy
New member
It is the pretty one with the really short barrel you take to a shotgun wedding, silly.
Actually, being "social" really used in the phrase to refer to as being nice, but being for times when you are around other folks. That being said, I don't know of people having shotguns called private shotguns.
Actually, being "social" really used in the phrase to refer to as being nice, but being for times when you are around other folks. That being said, I don't know of people having shotguns called private shotguns.
IamNOTaNUT
New member
Whoa. I was thinking Purdy, or some $30,000 highly worked wondergun. A thing of intrinsic beauty, sort of like a barbque gun! Apparently I missed it.
Dean Speir
New member
This, from someone who calls himself "Zoosh" and then starts moralizing!?!
Okay, security consultant and former MOS John Mattera authored a book entitled Serious Social Shotguns about five years ago, and that's kinda where the term originated.
Haven't thought this one through too well, have ya? Quite often the "social shotgun" is used offensively, although that role is becoming increasingly filled by the carbine.
No, "Zoosh," I most assuredly don't think so… and anyone who puffs themselves up objecting to the term "social" and then suggests "combat" as an acceptable preference, has taken one too many spills off his two-wheeler.
And "tactical" is too degraded a term now… it's been little more than a marketing buzzword for the past dozen years, and few have any idea of what it means anymore.
And how do you think that's going to happen? Who purchases or subscribes to the gunzines; who attends or takes space at a gun show?
You need to think some of this through a little better… in my never quite humble enough opinion, of course!
I actually find the term "gun rags" more offensive, and revealing of those who use it, than "social shotguns." It is demeaning to all those members of the firearms community who read them or just buy them to look at the pictures.
O, in the interests of full disclosure, I had the pleasure of editing the original draft of Mattera's book back in '94.
Good to see ya, Dean! Glad you could make it on over, and hope to see you again.
For those that came in late, Dean's one genuine, hard chrome plated authority on things that go bang and the best ways to make them do so effectively...
While his deathless prose has adorned some of our best gun magazines, some of his finest writing was done on the Old Prodigy Shooting Sports BB.
For those that came in late, Dean's one genuine, hard chrome plated authority on things that go bang and the best ways to make them do so effectively...
While his deathless prose has adorned some of our best gun magazines, some of his finest writing was done on the Old Prodigy Shooting Sports BB.
Zoosh's original position is legitimized by Mr. Speir's sarcastic and contemptuous remarks. The latter's belittling style masked as humor betrays the immaturity of the very term, "serious social shotgun."
The term would actually frighten most of us if we heard it used by a government agent. It should disgust us when used by other gun owners.
Mea culpa for having done so myself...
The term would actually frighten most of us if we heard it used by a government agent. It should disgust us when used by other gun owners.
Mea culpa for having done so myself...
Doc Hudson
New member
RE: Urban Renewal Shotguns or Civic Improvement Shotguns
Those are pretty good Dave McC, but you must admit those terms are more cumbersom than Social Shotgun.
Have you ever noticed that sometimes we do a better job of bashing each other from the inside than the gun grabbers do of bashing us from the outside?
Sociably Yours,
Doc Hudson
Those are pretty good Dave McC, but you must admit those terms are more cumbersom than Social Shotgun.
Have you ever noticed that sometimes we do a better job of bashing each other from the inside than the gun grabbers do of bashing us from the outside?
Sociably Yours,
Doc Hudson
Hmm a Social Shotgun is one intended for interactions with other people vs a Sporting shotgun intended for interactions with feathered creatures.
IMO it is a better term than defensive or combat shotgun.
Gun Rags is an accurate description of many of the current mags. They lack real content any more. If your wanting something better than a gun rag I would suggest Handloader, Rifle, and Precision Shooting.
IMO it is a better term than defensive or combat shotgun.
Gun Rags is an accurate description of many of the current mags. They lack real content any more. If your wanting something better than a gun rag I would suggest Handloader, Rifle, and Precision Shooting.
Dean, I must respectfully respond to a few points.
"Haven't thought this one through too well, have ya? Quite often the "social shotgun" is used offensively, although that role is becoming increasingly filled by the carbine."
Yes, I have thought this one through, quite thoroughly
in fact. Let's divide shooters into three categories:
Ordinary civilians, law enforcement, and military.
Obviously, if you are an ordinary civilian, and you shoot
for some reason other than "defense" (although it could
be in defense of someone else) you have almost certainly
broken the law, and, according to mainstream moral
beliefs in the US, you have acted in an immoral way.
If you shoot for property or principle, you have made
a grave moral and legal mistake.
Now, what about the other two categories of shooters,
law enforcmenet officers and military? If you think
about it, law enforcement actions have exactly the same
moral, and even legal, constraints as civilian action.
The mental state of a SWAT officer breaking down a door
should be, "I am going to serve this warrant, which
authorizes me to arrest these people. Given various
sources of information, I have reason to believe that
they may resist arrest with a high level of force,
so I must be prepared to defend myself, perhaps with
lethal force, during this arrest." As you can see,
this is a defensive mental state, not substantially
different from the mental state of an ordinary
civilian shooter. This is in contrast
to the mental state of "I have a warrant which authorizes
me to go in and shoot all these people", which would be
an offensive mental state. I'm sure that there are some SWAT
officers who have that offensive mental state, but that
is not the legally or morally acceptable state of mind,
and they are an aberration.
Finally, what about military shooters? First, the
shotgun is not really a military weapon, and is not
permitted under various international laws, but lets
say it is used under some circumstances. Yes, the military
shooter may be operating with an offensive state of mind
perhaps, but he is still operating under clearly
defined rules of engagement, which, these days, are likely
to prohibit offensive use.
So, perhaps there are a
tiny number of cases where a shotgun could legitimately
be called an "offensive" weapon, but why worry about
that? What we should worry about is shotguns being
banned by well-intentioned but ill-informed and scared
people. Most reasonable people in the US
agree that one has a right to defend oneself. Most
people in the US think it is wrong to use a weapon
with an offensive mental state, except in some very
limited circumstances, confined to the armed forces.
As smart gun owners, we should get ourselves into
a "good PR" mental state, instead of a "let's scare
the liberals" mental state, which is what many gun
owners are in right now.
What do you want more, to have the pleasure of offending
some ill-informed do-gooder, or to have the pleasure
of being able to own guns 50 years from now? I know
which one I would take. What about you?
"Haven't thought this one through too well, have ya? Quite often the "social shotgun" is used offensively, although that role is becoming increasingly filled by the carbine."
Yes, I have thought this one through, quite thoroughly
in fact. Let's divide shooters into three categories:
Ordinary civilians, law enforcement, and military.
Obviously, if you are an ordinary civilian, and you shoot
for some reason other than "defense" (although it could
be in defense of someone else) you have almost certainly
broken the law, and, according to mainstream moral
beliefs in the US, you have acted in an immoral way.
If you shoot for property or principle, you have made
a grave moral and legal mistake.
Now, what about the other two categories of shooters,
law enforcmenet officers and military? If you think
about it, law enforcement actions have exactly the same
moral, and even legal, constraints as civilian action.
The mental state of a SWAT officer breaking down a door
should be, "I am going to serve this warrant, which
authorizes me to arrest these people. Given various
sources of information, I have reason to believe that
they may resist arrest with a high level of force,
so I must be prepared to defend myself, perhaps with
lethal force, during this arrest." As you can see,
this is a defensive mental state, not substantially
different from the mental state of an ordinary
civilian shooter. This is in contrast
to the mental state of "I have a warrant which authorizes
me to go in and shoot all these people", which would be
an offensive mental state. I'm sure that there are some SWAT
officers who have that offensive mental state, but that
is not the legally or morally acceptable state of mind,
and they are an aberration.
Finally, what about military shooters? First, the
shotgun is not really a military weapon, and is not
permitted under various international laws, but lets
say it is used under some circumstances. Yes, the military
shooter may be operating with an offensive state of mind
perhaps, but he is still operating under clearly
defined rules of engagement, which, these days, are likely
to prohibit offensive use.
So, perhaps there are a
tiny number of cases where a shotgun could legitimately
be called an "offensive" weapon, but why worry about
that? What we should worry about is shotguns being
banned by well-intentioned but ill-informed and scared
people. Most reasonable people in the US
agree that one has a right to defend oneself. Most
people in the US think it is wrong to use a weapon
with an offensive mental state, except in some very
limited circumstances, confined to the armed forces.
As smart gun owners, we should get ourselves into
a "good PR" mental state, instead of a "let's scare
the liberals" mental state, which is what many gun
owners are in right now.
What do you want more, to have the pleasure of offending
some ill-informed do-gooder, or to have the pleasure
of being able to own guns 50 years from now? I know
which one I would take. What about you?
Dean Speir
New member
Thank you, Dave… nice to catch up with you, as well.
And, appropriately, under the "Social Shotguns" thread… you used to spend some time with them on the wall, didn't you?
O, for the love of Peter G. Kokalis, Romulus, do you ever listen to yourself? (What are they running in this Forum, McCracken, advanced courses in political correctness and pontification? Ye Gawds and 00 pellets!)
Romulus introduced the word "contemptuous" into this discussion, and I find "gun rags" to be the most compemptuous term in the entire thread… mostly because it sneers at those who read them while suggesting that the writer does not, and more often than not (by a wide margin!) this is utter hypocrisy.
I absolutely concur that content is sore lacking in virtually all of the gunzines today… and has been for some time. One publisher of a whole lotta firearms/rugged outdoors titles has long joked: "Articles?!? Aren't those what we try to squeeze in between the advertising pages?" (Talk about contemptuous! But then he's been making so much money for so long that he could afford to shrug off a multi-million dollar embezzlement last year, so he must have the formula down pretty pat, eh?)
Few writers with any credibility have their bylines appear in the gunzines anymore, except where it is important for ancillary reasons, to keep their names before the firearms community. (But then there are a lot of scribblers with Z-E-R-O credibility who do it for the same reason, because the critical thinking skills of the garden variety gunzine reader are somewhere below their real world tactical (ah!, there's that buzzword again!) ability.
One of the best gunzines in the past decade, with some solid information and extrmely knowledgeable writers on staff, was Tactical Shooter. It folded and is attempting to re-emerge as something which advertisers will support. (And, yes, I very much respect the three which Gramdring cited… you are pretty dialed in there, sir.)
Now, Zoosh, you impress me as being something of a stand-up kinda guy… I salute you, but at the same time I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree.
I don't think this is a "let's scare the liberals" kinda thing at all. Sure, there are some out there who are of that mindset, and others who, having barely withstood the oppressive environment of the Clinton years, are taking an easier breath for the first time in ages, and having some "payback" for all the crud to which we've been subjected.
I appreciate the implications of your long-term thinking… tactical, m'boy, very tactical! But I'm not very much into the "PR thing," I'm afraid… particularly in a firearms forum, although I have little doubt that TFL, GT and others (especially AR15.com and AK47.net) are routinely monitored by the forces of darkness. But then they're one entity where no PR battle will ever successfully be prosecuted.
Just as I will never agree with NSSF's annual edict that no silhouette targets may be displayed by S.H.O.T. Show exhibitors, nor will I eschew the term "social shotgun" just because it might offend one of the uncommitted. In this regard, to borrow from Lillian Hellman's celebrated response to the McCarthy Hearings in 1952, I decline to "cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions."
Sounds like a description of a rag - why such indignation, then? You seem to agree with the same posters you proceed to insult.
Zoosh, why respond "respectfully" to one who flings accusations like a rabid psychopath?
Politically correct, moi? Don't be ridiculous, Mr. Speir. You seem to have as much hubris as Bill Clinton. A little introspection is really in order. Go ahead: encourage your readers to use silly, juvenile, puerile terminology. Only you will revel in such "cleverness."
"Gun rags"
Dean,
I did not mean the term "gun rags" to be contemptuous.
In my experience, insiders to some particular group
(such as gun owners) often call their publications
"rags"; ie, computer professionals talk about "computer
rags", bikers talk about "motorcycle rags", etc. That's
how I was using the term, but I'm sorry if it came out
with different connotations.<p>
That said, I haven't found any gun rags that I've
particularly liked, but then again, I'm not much
interested in hearing about the latest and greatest
stuff, and I'm not really interested in acquiring any new guns,
except maybe a Holland & Holland someday....
Dean,
I did not mean the term "gun rags" to be contemptuous.
In my experience, insiders to some particular group
(such as gun owners) often call their publications
"rags"; ie, computer professionals talk about "computer
rags", bikers talk about "motorcycle rags", etc. That's
how I was using the term, but I'm sorry if it came out
with different connotations.<p>
That said, I haven't found any gun rags that I've
particularly liked, but then again, I'm not much
interested in hearing about the latest and greatest
stuff, and I'm not really interested in acquiring any new guns,
except maybe a Holland & Holland someday....
I'm not saying social work should be performed with a shotgun, but some 'social" situations may require the use of one.
I think the term is older than that guy's book. i was first introduced to that term as a teen. It seems an 'uncle' of mine (now passed on) kept a sawed off winchester 12 gauge for 'social work". I won't say he was a bad guy but it seems he definitely lived on both sides of the law during the labor disputes of appalachia. nuff said.
I think the term is older than that guy's book. i was first introduced to that term as a teen. It seems an 'uncle' of mine (now passed on) kept a sawed off winchester 12 gauge for 'social work". I won't say he was a bad guy but it seems he definitely lived on both sides of the law during the labor disputes of appalachia. nuff said.