The second part seems totally out of whack with the first part.

The second part seems bent on singling out guns when that is only one way in which video game protagonists kill their enemies. It doesn't make any sense. Killing stuff with a magical sword or throwing fireballs at them is the same thing.

I have no idea why anyone would limit this discussion to guns.

The real crux of the matter is many of the most compelling creative works are based on conflict. Conflict is interesting. Obviously, many movies and books aren't about violent conflict but they also don't have to worry about entertaining game-play. The options for non-violent yet very compelling conflict resolution are extremely slim. Yes, some games do a good job with that but many people don't find them to be as fun.

As for guns, the action of shooting lends itself to game-play very well. It's simple and works in a logical fashion. Aim and click. As a mechanism, it's immediately understandable.

It's the way they're used that's holding things back. And the reason for that is AAA gaming being dominated and overrun with business people.

Could a game like Ecco or Toe Jam & Earl get the AAA treatment these days from Sony or Microsoft? I think not.

Unless you define anyone who plays games a "gamer", you're incorrect. Most people on these message boards are what I personally define as gamers and if polled, the vast majorty of us rank COD way, way down the list of games we enjoy. 

The reason guns sell is because the general consumer likes them. It's the majorty, sure. But I wouldn't call them gamers. I would call them people who play games. Those are two difference things in my opinion.

Are you seeing someone for this? :p

Perhaps one day humananity will look back and wonder what it was like to adore violence as the solution to all, including boredom. I'm certain I won't live old enough to see that day :) Maybe the worst thing is, it doesn't affect me anymore at all. I'm currently watching the untold history of the US, which occasionally has uncensored pictures of the horror of different wars since ww2. My wife turns away in disgust while I'm thinking, so what... Thanks videogames. (and not to forget movies)

AAA games need to sell to the lowest common denominator gamer to get their money back, therefore great graphics, action, guns/killing, dumb-down gameplay is generally thought essential to reduce risk

My main problem is not guns itself. The problem is when they're used and they felt narratively incoherent with characters. As much as I like, for example, Uncharted games, I don't have any sympathy for Nathan who is basically a sociopath, mass murderer XD.

And, yeah, it's a bit unimaginative relying on guns in almost any AAA games nowadays. Most of them features gunplay in one way or another.

I hate guns, both in real life and in games. Not because I'm a pacifist mind you, I think war can be a good way to solve problems (that doesn't mean all your problems can be solved by war though. Only if all diplomacy failed and after careful consideration should one start a war.).

I just find games that use magic or swords to be more interesting. The only exception to this is Metroid and Splatoon, but both franchises are unrealistic which is why I like them a lot. One is sci-fi that has a larger focus on exploration and atmosphere than the actual shooting elements and the other is a wacky fantasy shooter.

Yes, compared to movies, guns are over-represented.

There needs to be a way a story like Uncharted can be told without constant gun fights, Indiana Jones movies aren't 95% shooting.

The problem is not if it can be told without constant gun fights, yet whether it can be sold without constant gun fights.
Uncharted 4 already gets criticised for too much 'downtime' aka exploration and puzzles. Unfortunately those 2 things have to be kept easy to appease the majority. Make exploration and puzzles hard and you get more complaints. Make the platforming actually challenging and you risk losing much of you audience.

If you like the puzzle, platforming and exploration aspect, play The Way instead. It's a challenging retro cinematic platformer with limited shooting. An Uncharted game could be like that, probably wouldn't sell much. I wonder if the original Tombraider would sell nowadays. You could blunder around for an hour in some levels trying to make progress. Nowadays games already hint where to go next if you stand still for a minute, and make sure it's almost impossible to fail while navigating the terrain. It's the equivalent of being invulnerable and all enemies dropping dead if it takes you longer than 60 seconds to kill them. The joy of discovery and traversal has been removed from AAA games. All that's left is pretty pictures.

I agree, but I think it is the fear of failure above all things: devs think we want guns and multiplayer bloodbaths, so they give us more and more of it.
When they try to make something new, like LA Noire, they get afraid mid-process and give us some kind of unsatisfying hybrid of the satus quo and the new.
In a way it is our own fault: when we do not think outside the box about what we would like to experience, why would devs do?
The high budgets are holding the industry down, the fear of not being modern, the forgetfulness of the great things of the past.
The fear of ridiculousness is holding the industry back. When you try your best to make your game look and feel like a sanitized Holywood super production, the best final product you can achieve is a game that feels like a pasteurized sanitized Holywood blockbuster.