[quote=@Skallagrim]
Well no one in a text game is applying any logic to dodging a lightning bolt, or dodging a wind attack that can cut through armor. If you want the 'logic' of damage all magical fire, ice, lightning et al must then find a real world correlation. Everyone wants to limit a gun but doing so we must then state the imaginary non-science based attacks must be equally bound. 
[/quote]

Magic has the benefit of being able to be restricted appropriately by altering the behavior of the spell. 

Restricting weapons appropriately is inherently more difficult given what they are based off of.

[quote=@Skallagrim]
<Snipped quote by Rilla>

Rilla, magic and technology are opposites. Magic bends physical law to the will of the mage. Technology depends on physical law. In the arena the use of technology reinforces physical law, countering the effect of magic.

A magic using individual casting an offensive spell works by summoning some form of fire/ lightning bolt / ice/ acid etc. out of thin air (physically impossible!), and then accelerating that flame/ lightning bolt/ ice shard/ acid spray to high speed along a finely controlled trajectory, merely by force of will (also physically impossible). In contrast, a gun takes advantage of several physical laws to achieve the same ends.

If we accept the possibility of magic in textual combat then the reality of firearms does not become anything other than another form of attacking your opponent. Bullets do not automatically kill your opponent; they do not automatically penetrate armor any more than a spell does. Like all T1 attacks prepping is required to do substantial damage. With firearms it is more difficult to attain the ‘preps” because you cannot continually aim at the target. 

Prepping is achieved easily with ‘powered’ weapons such as lasers and particle-beam guns by simply stating that the character is powering the weapon up. With gunpowder weapons it is more difficult. I have in the past used the word focused, focusing, focus on etc. to build up ‘preps’. This allows for cues that the opponent may see as the gunfighter is targeting them. These cues are no different than prepping a spell with the descriptors congruent with the magic the caster is employing.

Other than that gunfighters and spell casters are very similar, both require preps to establish the power to break through their opponents prepped defenses. As for bullets, guns fire a maximum of three bullets per attack and guns do run out of ammo, after ‘X’ number of attacks. 
[/quote]

Not that I want to debate semantics.

Actually it isn't physically impossible for those things to be created out of thin air. It is [b]currently[/b] a scientific stretch utilizing Einstien's E=mc2, but if you delve into various theories in quantum mechanics you would have other alternatives to creating a method for accomplishing these things. The same would apply to movement. The stretch would be in the potency of the energy.

For the prep on a gunpowder firearm you also run into issues. In less powered combat you would be forced to outright limit basic movement capabilities of a standard human in order to create any form of equatable preparation between magic and guns. A gun, once aimed, required significantly less effort to fire a second shot than it does to create an entirely new spell with the added benefit of being able to easily adjust. Even seeing someone aim at you with a weapon, in a properly, reasonably constructed post, is still inadequate in almost all instances in terms of providing counterplay.

The limiting of number of rounds per attack is interesting, but personally I feel it feels awkward as a restriction. It restricts playstyle without addressing what I feel are the underlying problems with most firearms.