Well, sure, but that's because you've actually read the stories and know the facts. I'm talking about the people out there who misrepresent or misunderstand the facts. I've heard rhetoric from some people who exaggerate Batman's early gun use as if to imply that it was routine and normative for a long time, and that his revision into a nonlethal, gun-free vigilante was something that happened after decades rather than just ten months. Maybe that's not intentional misrepresentation; maybe they're just confused and conflating this change in Batman's character with ones that came later, say, when the Comics Code was instituted. But there are still a lot of people out there who haven't read the original comics as you have, and who have a lot of misconceptions about the extent and prominence of Batman's early gun use.
I think the hyperbole about Batman's gun use may stem in large part from Wizard magazine articles nearly two decades ago. One of that magazine's recurring features was to examine "unknown" comic history and lore and then make snarky comments to amuse its readers. In particular, I remember them focusing on Superman spanking Lois, the Batman/Robin sexual subtext, and Batman's gun.
They would pull a comic panel straight out of a book (often with no context given) and rip it apart in the caption, e.g. "Batman Was Once Dirty Harry!" with a splash panel of Bats holding a pistol in both hands. I remember, after reading one such feature, inferring that Batman ALWAYS had a gun holstered in his utility belt in the golden age of comics.
For these pieces, I think that Wizard was more focused on punch lines than accuracy and led to many erroneous assumptions by their readers that may still echo today.