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

[valtyr]

So is she an avid gun rights supporter or fuelled by control and fear?

You think a paranoid schizophrenic with a history of mental instability being able to buy a gun is the system working?

Well, since violent crime in the U.S. continues to fall and gun ownership and rights continue to rise, we're on the right track.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[stubbleupdate]

Violent crime continues to fall as the population increases.
Violent crime continues to fall as more hours of original AMC programming are announced
Violent crime continues to fall as the national deficit increases.
Violent crime continues to fall as Nick Spencer writes more comic books.

[proteus_lives]

"You think a paranoid schizophrenic with a history of mental instability being able to buy a gun is the system working?"

How often does that happen?

fallacy: "blood in the streets, blah, blah."

[valtyr]

Uh... too often?

fallacy: "blood in the streets, blah, blah."

Sorry, can you be more specific about the logical fallacy in "If paranoid schizophrenics with a history of mental instability can legally purchase weapons, we should probably review our system of background checking,"?

[proteus_lives]

There is no record of Loughner seeking mental health assistance. There were plenty of incidents and he should have been put in the system but he wasn't.

What was the system suppose to look for?

[valtyr]

Also, you didn't answer my question; was Gifford the avid supporter of gun rights you claim, or were her votes in favour of restriction fuelled by control and fear, as you... also claim?

So if there was a better system to record incidents, that could be accessed for background checks when purchasing guns, would you be in favour of it?

[proteus_lives]

"So if there was a better system to record incidents, that could be accessed for background checks when purchasing guns, would you be in favour of it?"

Maybe, maybe not. I'd have to see the details.

"Also, you didn't answer my question; was Gifford the avid supporter of gun rights you claim, or were her votes in favour of restriction fuelled by control and fear, as you... also claim?"

Not was, is. To my knowledge she's made no statement reversing previous positions.

She's what we call a Blue Dog. Moderate to the core. But she was against the D.C. gun ban and while gun lobbys gave her a low rating, they didn't send much time and or money trying to oust her.

She was a dancer and in a swing district, you gotta be.

[valtyr]

So what you're saying is there may be circumstances in which tighter gun restriction is a sensible option rather than all about fear and control?

You didn't answer my question. Avid supporter, or fuelled by fear and control?

[proteus_lives]

"So what you're saying is there may be circumstances in which tighter gun restriction is a sensible option rather than all about fear and control?"

Well, hypotheticals are hypotheticals for a reason.

"Avid supporter, or fuelled by fear and control?"

Anything in-between?

[valtyr]

Well, hypotheticals are hypotheticals for a reason.

What do you mean by this? Do you acknowledge there may be circumstances where tighter gun restrictions are sensible or not?

"Avid supporter, or fuelled by fear and control?"

Anything in-between?

Well, I don't know, that's why I'm asking you. You're the one who's described her as those two things.

[proteus_lives]

Do you acknowledge circumstances where such restrictions are unneeded and unwanted?

I believe that you contributed the second one.

[valtyr]

Yes, of course, not all restrictions on guns are needed or wanted. Do you acknowledge there may be circumstances where tighter gun restrictions are sensible?

No, you said that gun control in modern times was about fear and control. Gifford voted for tighter gun restrictions on multiple occasions, so by your logic her attitude is about control and fear, but you also claim she's a avid gun rights supporter. Which is it?

[proteus_lives]

Gifford voted for tighter gun restrictions on multiple occasions.

And against it on multiple occasions.

"Do you acknowledge there may be circumstances where tighter gun restrictions are sensible?

Person, group or environmental?

[stubbleupdate]

I'm curious as to the environmental factor?

Is there a situation where having the means to defend yourself isn't desirable?

In a school (and I do mean in the 11-18 age setting)?
In a pool (and I include water parks)
In a confessional?
In a bowling alley?
In a supermarket?
In a flea market?
While driving on the highway?
While driving in the city?
At a wedding?
At a funeral?
At an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting?
At a dog show?
In the bath?
In the cinema?

Do you feel that there are times when people should not be allowed to defend themselves?

[proteus_lives]

What if you're eating green eggs and ham on a blimp with the king of Siam?

But wait, the blimp is over international waters.

[valtyr]

Are you arguing that she veered wildly between being an avid gun rights support and being fuelled by fear and control?


Person, group or environmental?

Sure, any of those. Do you acknowledge there may be circumstances where tighter gun restrictions are sensible?

[proteus_lives]

No, she's a politician.

I'd have to see the details.

[valtyr]

You mean there are reasons to vote for gun control that aren't fear and control?


And are there, hypothetically, details that would be acceptable to you?

[proteus_lives]

You mean, you think politicans always go by one set of rules?

I can envision a lot of details. Please be clearer.

[valtyr]

You mean, you think politicans always go by one set of rules?

I'm sorry, that's not an answer to my question. Try again. Are there reasons to vote for gun control that aren't fear and control?

So can you envision any that would be acceptable to you? I'm being crystal clear, don't play stupid.

[proteus_lives]

Crystal clear?

I'm sorry, that didn't answer my question.

[valtyr]

...all right. I'll answer your completely irrelevant question. No, I do not believe politicians always go by one set of rules. I believe that like nearly all human beings they behave differently in different circumstances.

Now, as I have answered that question, please answer mine: Are there reasons to vote for gun control that aren't fear and control?

Crystal clear?

Yes. Yes, you asked me to be clearer, I spelled it out very simply. These are not complex ideas. 'Crystal clear' means 'very very clear'. You can go back and read the thread again if you're confused. Do you acknowledge there may be circumstances where tighter gun restrictions are sensible?

[proteus_lives]

Now define fear and control.

Then list the reasons that aren't.

[valtyr]

No, you first used the terms 'fear' and 'control' in this discussion. If you're defining them differently from the standard definitions, you'd better make that clear.

Then list the reasons that aren't.

Uh, I've been asking you if those reasons even exist? "List incidences of X" isn't an answer to "Does X exist." Surely you know what you believe?

Do you know what you believe? If you do, you should be able to answer these questions:

Are there reasons to vote for gun control that aren't fear and control?
and
Do you acknowledge there may be circumstances where tighter gun restrictions are sensible?

[proteus_lives]

I don't understand why you're hesitant.

You should list them, you already believe they exist.