There's the man's problem right there. He's hunting birds with a _rifle_, one that's apparently loaded with buckshot.

Or, thanks to gun control in the UK no reporter can be expected to know anything about guns.

Everything's wrong with the gun part of this story.

Reporters aren't the only ones who no know very little about guns. In my experience, most lawyers were shockingly ignorant about guns and ammunition.

Interestingly enough, most judges were reasonable savvy in this regard. At the time of this observation, just post-Vietnam, it seemed to me to be a generational thing. The judges, being older, either had used guns or had had studied firearms and firearms forensics as a matter as professional responsibility. The younger guys, mostly having Clintonized themselves out of military service, seemed aggressively proud in their ignorance.

Needless to say, A lawyer who knew a great deal about guns had a big advantage in handling gun cases.

Lou, H.D. Miller

check this Article Doesn't the fact that one has "rifled barrel" on a shotgun (even if stupidly loaded with buckshot) make the shotgun by definition a rifle. Also here

h: that's for deer and turkeys, you don't hunt upland birds with that. And you wouldn't load up with buckshot even if you did. The giveaway is the breed of the dog. Drathaars are fancified pointers.

H.D.: That's probably why the dog shot him, for being such an idiot. Too bad he couldn't have got the reporter instead.