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]

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?

[valtyr]

It's a thought experiment. I've explained it already. If your imagination is not strong enough, pretend a strong auto lobby and a bunch of car enthusiasts got it passed. Politicians sought to win votes from all the car-drivers in their constituencies. Wacky! Anyway, in this brave new world, the Right to Drive exists.

So, for the eighth time of asking: If there were a 'right to drive' enshrined in the bill of rights, would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

That's one powerful lobby.

Given that the auto industry isn't big in most states, how did they get the majority ratifiction needed from the states?

[valtyr]

Given that the auto industry isn't big in most states, how did they get the majority ratifiction needed from the states?

This is a thought experiment, not a full-blown alternate universe novel I'm writing. Use. Your. Imagination. A Right to Drive is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Imagine that. Now, under those circumstances, (I ask for the ninth time) would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

This is your story.

I would appericate some background.

I do love alternate universe fiction.

Have you ever read Turtledove?

[valtyr]

Stop pretending to be too stupid to understand a hypothetical question.

A Right to Drive is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Under those circumstances, (tenth time) would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

Stop pretending to be too stupid to provide an outline.

[valtyr]

Uh... I'm not. I'm quite sure I'm clever enough to write an AU novel where the USA ended up with the Right To Drive in the constitution. However, it's totally unnecessary, as we'd still end up with the same hypothetical question:

A Right to Drive is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Under those circumstances, (tenth time) would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

Eleventh time of asking. Hypothetical question. You know what they are, and you don't need an elaborate alternate history to justify it. Answer the question.

[proteus_lives]

I think you're clever enough. I've always enjoyed your contributions to S_D

[valtyr]

For the twelfth time: A Right to Drive is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Under those circumstances, would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

Still need the background.

[valtyr]

No, you don't need me to list the individual made-up reasons that hundreds of people had for voting in a piece of legislation. You absolutely do not, and your claim to is simply laughable, as in I literally find it incredible you are saying 'I can't pretend! I'm incapable of pretending or imagining!'

It's quite clear you have no answer to the question. You cannot defend your position because you don't have a coherent position.

For the thirteenth time: A Right to Drive is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Under those circumstances, would you consider driving licenses authoritarian bullshit?

[proteus_lives]

I think it's amazing you think your positions exist in a vacuum.

[valtyr]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting because I don't have the time or inclination to write out thirty-eight fictional accounts of how individual states ratified a fictional amendment in a hypothetical question, I think my positions exist in a vacuum?

No, you're incapable of defending your position, which is why you're asking for nonsensical levels of detail. If I provided those thirty-eight accounts, you would then demand the individual biography of every legislator, because you're trying to distract from the fact you ain't got shit.