I.E the argument given is that guns don't fit the medieval fantasy setting
No. I was explicit and clear that having guns or not having guns in fantasy is a matter of
preference.
Before that, this discussion started with complains about guns. These complains had a point, because these people were not promised a "medieval fantasy". Something that is nebulous and vague. They were promised a successor to Baldur's Gate, something
specific. With a setting that didn't have guns and didn't have the same tone.
The argument is as simple as they were promised x genre, and were given y genre.
All your said after, is irrelevant. Because that was never the point. But that people who are promised something in tone and setting, and are not delivered with it, can be understandably upset.
If guns can be in medieval fantasy or anything like that, it's completely
subjective. And because of that, is normal that some people like them, and some people do not.
That's why since the beginning I already said that this was never about historic perception, because it is not. Yet you keep repeating the same over and over.
Moreover I like guns, they should be in any setting that is not historical but rather mishmash of 6th century to 16th century, which is a large part of fantasy settings.
I'm a "neutral" to guns, I'm not for them or against them, it depends for me.
But seeing how quick to push them (in specific subgenres) some people are, is not strange that other people get alarms when they are going to be included in what was labelled like a more traditional fantasy.