Layers of editorial oversight
In December, Aguilar purchased a single-barrel shotgun at United Gun Shop, along with a box of bucketshot (large and lethal) and birdshot (small and round) ammunition. The shotgun could be broken down into several pieces, making it easy to transport.
Ok, then.
March 12th, 2014 at 7:44 pm
Giving “30-caliber magazine” a run for its’ money.
March 12th, 2014 at 8:17 pm
They’re making an issue of the fact the shotgun can be broken down?
Out here in the real world, that’s a legal way of carrying a shotgun in a vehicle – if it’s not fully cased then it must be broken down into component parts, i.e. ‘lock, stock and barrel’.
March 12th, 2014 at 8:41 pm
I do not think a gun that can shoot a bucket – as in launch one from its barrel – would be terribly legal, shotgun or not…
March 13th, 2014 at 1:11 am
Once again they leave out important information.
What shape is bucketshot? Apparently it’s not round.
March 13th, 2014 at 8:20 am
Bucket firing cannon? That would be legal.
March 13th, 2014 at 2:54 pm
I was going to say that spell checkers are not always your friend, but in this case; I tried “bucketshot” and got a red line under it. Anyway, Bill Gates doesn’t recognize it as a word. The suggested corrections were;
Buckets hot
and
Bucket shot
“Buckshot” was not suggested, but when it type it, it’s not flagged so buckshot is recognized as a word.
“Journalists” in any case have no business trying to discuss highly technical aspects of firearms like “bucketshot” anyway. I thought they had that proscription in their anti-rights playbook. The “oversight” then would be that someone ignored the playbook and made the attempt to talk technical (i.e. reveal himself to be a jackass) and no one caught him in the act.