Why Batman will never use a gun (or wouldn't, circa 1993)

[thehefner]

A couple months back, I got into yet another debate with someone about why I hated Batman using a gun in Final Crisis. I meant to post this at the time as a canonical response, but got distracted with IRL stuff and general geekery at my Two-Face fanblog. Besides, I figured this might be controversial, since it's a controversial real-life topic combined with a controversial comic topic, taken from a comic that was deeply controversial at the time it was released: Batman: Seduction of the Gun.

B:SotG was an anti-gun one-shot published as a benefit issue for the John Reisenbach Foundation for gun-control education activities, a fact which wasn't revealed to readers until the end. DC was flooded with angry letters from gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, many of which were published in the early Knightfall issues. Many letters were along the lines of "My heart goes out to the Reisenbach family, what a tragedy, BUT STILL GUN CONTROL IS BAD I FEEL BETRAYED FOR ACCIDENTALLY DONATING MONEY TO THIS CAUSE." I could do a whole post about that comic and the response it got.

So it might be a bit unfair to use these pages as my reasoning why Batman would never use a gun, and would always find another way to save the day because he's frickin' Batman. It's a very biased perspective. But in this case, I believe it also entirely fits with Batman as a character, and how he's always reacted to guns and gun violence.





WARNING: this is the single most graphic description of exactly how the Waynes died.





Some context: Hudson, a teenage friend of Tim's, decided to show off his father's gun to the guys. In classic After-School Special fashion, he started horsing around and it went off in the friend's living room.











I think it's the first two panels on the last page that really make this, in that it shows how much Bruce elevates Thomas Wayne in memory. Never mind that Thomas was human, and could easily have been killed another way. The point is, that's just how ingrained this ideal is into Bruce's character.

That said, I'm sure there's a point to be made about how Final Crisis was so powerful because he managed to overcome his feelings to do the right thing, yadda yadda yadda. If the story worked for you, well, there's nothing I can say. But for me--and I suspect for many Batman readers--this is why we can never imagine Bruce pulling the trigger on anybody. I could sooner see him shoving the god-bullet into Darkseid by hand. Because he's the goddamn Batman, after all.

Comments

[proteus_lives]

Excuse me, I'm used to discussing this with people familiar with the issue.

Modern gun-control is crap.

[valtyr]

How does being familiar with the issues justify moving the goalposts of your argument? Either argue it's right because it's a Right, or argue it's right because Government restriction in this area is unjustified interference in what's not the State's business, but please recognise they're different arguments.

[proteus_lives]

My point is the that government regulation of this Right reached it's logical point decades ago.

Modern gun control is about fear and control, not safety or even guns.

[valtyr]

My point is the that government regulation of this Right reached it's logical point decades ago.

Except where it didn't, as you argue upthread.

Modern gun control is about fear and control, not safety or even guns.

And except where restrictions are being loosened, as you argue upthread.

[proteus_lives]

"And except where restrictions are being loosened, as you argue upthread."

Ok, why would lfewer guns be about the same thing?

[valtyr]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can you rephrase?

(And I'll answer tomorrow, as it's late here.)

[proteus_lives]

I think it's different. Loosening gun laws wouldn't be about fear or control.

[valtyr]

Okay, do you not see that you are not saying 'here is a rational position on gun control, tighter restrictions than that are authoritarian, looser restrictions are potentially dangerous', you're saying 'all loosening of gun restrictions is awesome' and that is silly?

Also, you never answered my point: is regulating the driving of automobiles authoritarian? What about planes? Or poison controls?

[proteus_lives]

"Also, you never answered my point: is regulating the driving of automobiles authoritarian? What about planes? Or poison controls?"

What was that you said earlier about goal-posts?

[valtyr]

I said that changing the frame of discussion from 'banning this is philosophically wrong' to 'banning this is unconstitutional' is moving the goalposts. They're different arguments entirely.

When you say 'limiting my access to these very lethal tools is authoritarian bullshit', it's not moving the goalposts to ask about how you feel about the limiting of other lethal tools.

[proteus_lives]

Is access to those other "very lethal tools" covered in the Bill of Rights?

[valtyr]

Is this some kind of performance art illustrating logical fallacies?

I don't know how I can break this down for you any further. They're not the same argument. If you added 'the right to string up journalists' to the Constitution, that would not suddenly make banning the murder of journalists authoritarian bullshit, whereas banning medicinal marijuana is authoritarian bullshit despite the fact toking up is not covered in the Bill of Rights. Can you not understand this?

[proteus_lives]

What performance?

Why do you feel voting or religious freedom should be limited too?

[valtyr]

Well, the fact I explained what moving the goalposts is, and asked you a question, and then you... moved the goalposts again in the exact same way as you did the last time I pointed out you were moving the goalposts. You're either startlingly unobservant or doing it on purpose.

I don't. I think they're good things. However, I don't think they're good things solely because they're listed on the Bill of Rights, which is the only explanation you have so far offered for why guns should be distributed to the mentally ill but driving needs to be restricted and licensed.

[proteus_lives]

"you have so far offered for why guns should be distributed to the mentally ill"

When did I say that?

[valtyr]

Well, currently guns are accessible to people with a history of mental instability, and you're opposed to any limitation on that.

So why are you okay with that, but comfortable with restricting driving? If a Right to Drive was added, would you think stopping untrained, unlicensed, even blind people from driviing was authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

"Well, currently guns are accessible to people with a history of mental instability,"

Way too vague. If I've done time in a mental hospital, I couldn't get a legal weapon.

"If a Right to Drive was added, would you think stopping untrained, unlicensed, even blind people from driviing was authoritarian bullshit?"

That's poorly and not in the spirit of the thing. Try harder.

[valtyr]

Again, paranoid scizophrenic with history of mental instability got a gun. Do you think he should have been allowed that gun?

That's poorly and not in the spirit of the thing. Try harder.

No, it absolutely is in the spirit of the thing. You just keep dodging and dismissing because you don't have an answer to it. You have been consistently unable to justify why you should be allowed access to lethal weapons apart from cheeping 'it's a right'. I am trying to tease some semblance of critical thought from you on the topic. This is a thought experiment designed to give a different perspective on a familiar subject. The thought experiment is, what if a right was passed that gave all Americans the Right to Drive? Would you then call driver's licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

"Do you think he should have been allowed that gun?"

Framing.

"You have been consistently unable to justify why you should be allowed access to lethal weapons "

RKBA. I have the right to defend myself.

[valtyr]

Okay, how about 'If a person with Loughton's history of mental instability tried to buy a gun today, do you think that person should be allowed?"


Uh, when I say "without cheeping 'it's a right'" I don't mean 'use an acronym for right instead'. It's also not the question I asked, which you are still dodging.

Here is the question: If there were a 'right to drive' enshrined in the bill of rights, would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

"'If a person with Loughton's history of mental instability tried to buy a gun today, do you think that person should be allowed?""

I'm assuming that the history is known and documented.

I think that it should be flagged and that person reviewed before making the purcshace. In many cases and laws I'm a case-by-case guy.

"If there were a 'right to drive' enshrined in the bill of rights"

You're being very silly. Do you really think there is no diffrence between defending yourself and driving?

[valtyr]

I'm assuming that the history is known and documented.

Well I don't actually expect gun vendors to be psychic, so yes. Obviously.

I think that it should be flagged and that person reviewed before making the purcshace. In many cases and laws I'm a case-by-case guy.

So you do think there are legitimate reasons to restrict guns?

"If there were a 'right to drive' enshrined in the bill of rights"

You're being very silly. Do you really think there is no diffrence between defending yourself and driving?

I'm not being silly, you're just evading the question again, because you don't have an answer. Again: If there were a 'right to drive' enshrined in the bill of rights, would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

" If there were a 'right to drive' enshrined in the bill of rights, would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?"

Why would a right to drive be enshrined in the bill of rights? What purpose does that serve?

[valtyr]

Uh well I guess because it was voted in, that's how these things work.

Asking for the seventh time - If there were a 'right to drive' enshrined in the bill of rights, would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

Why would it be voted in? There are reasons for the other amendments.

Why does the right to drive need to be addressed?