I feel it really does have a point because it spreads information how the whole "guns in medieval age" is less of a boogieman and more like a historical fact and people should really grown out from the preconception that guns suddenly made armor and castles useless when both actually was in the process of their greatest development yet. If people turn this into a superweapon then it's everyone's duty to crack down on them.
If we are at it, did you know that by the 16th century there are some amazing repeating guns, I am talking about revolver "musket" or actual repeater gun with separate ball and powder magazines that loaded both in precise order when the right levers were pulled on it. Yet you don't see these dominating wars, either.
One reason is because they were expensive and only a limited number of people could make them. So were wheelocks. Actually IIRC Switzerland made a few hundred repeater guns by the late times regardless.
So why there are no terrifying tales about super gunmen rapidly mowing down masses?
Maybe because war is more than just a bunch of videogame stats. Maybe because there's a good reason why crossbows were actually a superior weapon to bows even though the difference in fire rate. And lastly because there's always the stinking logistics.
If a nation has gun-heavy army make sure they have all the right reasons for that. And while guns have advantages they also have their nuances and drawbacks. You should learn to use that.
I don't give a damn if my enemy has awesome wheelock muskets loaded with solid gold bullets. There's still a myriad ways to beat them.
And one of those actually involves heavy cavalry, the thing some argue would the gun make obsolete.