Ugh, I'm going to have to piecemeal this out... [quote]By your logic, anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong and is making excuses.[/quote] Demonstrably untrue. [quote]These are valid counter arguments to what you are saying.[/quote] No they're not. They're excuses meant to avoid the topic at hand, and it's irritating. [quote]The shotgun has barely changed design in like 200 years. [/quote] This doesn't help your point. [quote]The ammunition and system used to deliver the shot are most likely different.[/quote] The ammunition is not the topic of this discussion. [quote]You're assuming these guns use a standard black powder ignition system.[/quote] No I'm not. [quote]Which is stupid to assume.[/quote] Just as stupid as assuming it was assumed in the first place. [quote]Since they don't require the same things modern convential fireearms need to fire they can look and fire whatever way the person who created it want it to.[/quote] This doesn't make the design any less wrong. [quote]If they want it to look like a revolver they can. It doesn't impact the actual functionality or mechanics of the gun.[/quote] Yes they can, and yes it does, if they expect suspension of disbelief. [quote]You're trying to compare apples and oranges seeing as most of the guns in game, even the hand cannons and such, simply cannot exist because the ammunition they use hasn't been created or doesn't exist.[/quote] Composition/division. [quote]And seeing as we can't tell what the future holds we don't know if something like this would be created.[/quote] Which is why it's fair to judge them based on the same principles with which they were designed, which is quite obviously the mechanical functionality of [i]modern firearms[/i]. [quote]Your argument is null and void.[/quote] Your assertion is patently false.