The gun might only be fired a single time. If that's the case, then how would the other two days end?
Multiple (one shot?) guns might potentially be on their way, one per day (or, perhaps, night-preceding-the-day). Also bombs and blackmails.
Although I still find myself wondering what 'anti-jamming' mechanism this round's mechanics have, in the event that the round-ending gun gets 'eaten' by the assumed 'universal defuser' character. You might know (possessing the gun), but you also may not be keen to let on. The armourer might know (unless it's a Secret condition to the role), but likewise.
Maybe the armourer (being 'otherwise noted' in private as capable of multiple night actions, to be the sender of both weapons, even if not
all known 'gifts') was forced to send his presents to different people, with the caveat that the bomb immediately explodes if the gun ceases to be useful. (Not sure how that would be represented in flavour.) Maybe guns just never get binned, as being of no perceived threat to the recipient so is used as intended even by a 'binner'.
On the other hand, no day end time in the Day post...
Not unknown, previously, as a mistake; although it
had been corrected (and announced separately) on the other occasions that the mod 'forgot' to say. In this instance, I'll go with the apparent Word Of God that it is deliberate (as per the requires-a-Hammer-to-end Day 3, previously).
I'm almost tempted to suggest we see if
bullets can be auto-defused, to end the round. There's the whole point of losing the role that potentially is the one that can save Town, but I'm also worried that a
declared bulletproof (well, just blackmail/bomb-proof, in this case, as far as I'm aware) Townie should have remained unknown and able to quietly 'soak it up' rather than declare "Go on, try it on everyone else, because
I am immune! Mwuhahaha!!!".
Or then there's the person gleefully declaring that they've got a bomb, right off the bat. If I didn't vastly respect Fish as a player, I'd say it was a rookie mistake to faux-declare something like that to gambit an 'established' innocence (and possibly even "it's not my fault!" should they have ended being later discovered as a perpetrator of a bomb-outrage). There's
got to be more to that story, but I wouldn't yet like to say who could be the one to give that information.
i.e., unless someone feels capable of adding more information, I think we're stuck and are left with the need to do something random to generate some new info. I'm not sure how else to walk this issue through...