No, instead you've assumed that as guns function as they currently do then they must always function that way which is a fallacy in itself You really need to stop posting links that work against you

When they are directly based on existing firearms, they do. You're being deliberately obtuse.

But they're not (for the second time) they are fantasy weapons. They don't exist. They're nor real. They employ fictional technology. They are no more based on today's guns as my lightsaber lamp is based on an actual lightsaber.

They aren't fantasy just because you decided to label them fantasy in an attempt to circumvent the point. Again with that special pleading you love so much... Ice Breaker is fantasy. The Vex Mythoclast is fantasy. The Nechrochasm is fantasy. These weapons have no basis in reality. At all. None. They aren't even designed to look like feasible weapons. The rest are the antithesis of fantasy. They are designed based on modern firearms. The Hand cannons are obviously based on modern revolves, the MGs based on modern LMGs, the shotguns based on modern shotguns. This places them in the sci-fi category. You can sit there shaking your head and saying "nuh uh!" all you want, but you're wrong. Period. End of story.

Kind of brings us back to the whole "they don't shoot bullets" thing though so yeah they're fantasy, in a fantasy world, with fantasy undead people fighting time travelling robots. The Destiny universe is not based in fact. I don't get how that is so hard for you to understand. I have a pretty good idea mind you but that's another story altogether

Again with the special pleading... This entire topic appears to have flown over your head.

Not at all, just seems that you refuse to accept any argument against your own viewpoint regardless of how logical it may be. For some bizarre reason you seem to think that your opinion holds more authority and is more valid than anyone else's despite you continuously demonstrating failings that you're so quick to call other people on. Tldr: your dumb is too strong for me

Authoritarianism implies arbitration. It's not arbitrary when it's based on fact. Your first point is also demonstrably untrue. There are several others who have had far more valid arguments than you claim to have presented, which have been accepted by myself. Basically, your arguments are not logical. When you have a logical argument, I'll accept it. Until then, no.