Why Batman should never use guns

Oh, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Will I ever not be talking about you? Every time I think I’m done and can forget about you until next year, another damn picture comes out that I have to discuss. It’s beginning to feel like watching Zack Snyder’s Twitter feed is my whole job now.

In this case, as you’re likely already aware, the picture under scrutiny is the above image of the new Batmobile design. I’m not a fan of it overall; maybe it’s just the angle, but it seems to be a knockoff of the “Tumbler” from Christopher Nolan’s movies with a minimal hint of the ‘89 look. It’s just plain ugly with no style and nothing recognizably “Batmobile-ish” about it*.

[*So hopefully they’ll never actually call it the Batmobile, like they did with the Tumbler, so I don’t have to ever recognize it as the actual Batmobile.]

The article continues after these advertisements...

But aesthetics aren’t what we’re here to talk about. What I’m here to focus on are these things right here:

Why Batman should never use guns

As if it wasn’t tank-like enough already, this new “Batmobile” has a prominently displayed gun turret on its front hood. There is some precedent for this: I’m told the Batmobile in the upcoming Arkham Knight video game has a similar look, and the Batmobile in the ‘89 film sported hidden artillery under the hood. But this is the first time a movie has featured Batman driving something quite so aggressively militarized in appearance. Likely, it’s meant as yet another reference to The Dark Knight Returns, which from all accounts Dawn of Justice is heavily influenced by, and which featured a huge, tank-like Batmobile armed with rubber bullet-loaded cannons.

As with anything that involves Batman and guns, controversy is unavoidable. The Caped Crusader has a long and complicated history with firearms, and even among the fans, there’s still much disagreement on what Batman’s relationship with guns is or should be. Like any fan, I have an opinion of my own, and given the title of this post, you can probably guess what it is. I don’t think Batman should use guns, regardless of what they’re mounted on. There are reasons for this beyond the political*. It goes straight to the whole idea and psychology of the character.

[*But in the interest of full disclosure: I support gun control, and tend to gravitate towards fictional characters with an aversion to guns. So feel free to pigeonhole anything else I say as part of my “agenda”, if it makes you feel better.]

For context, let’s go back to the beginning. When Batman first appeared in the pages of Detective Comics, as pro Bat-turret supporters are quick to point out, he had no issue with guns or lethal force in general. In those early days, he was frequently seen carrying a pistol, and he sometimes casually slew his enemies, or at the very least showed no remorse when the occasional crook bit it along the way.

Why Batman should never use guns

However, this gun-toting Batman was very short-lived, lasting only a handful of issues. Batman in these early stories had yet to really develop an identity of his own, borrowing heavily from the Shadow, with a little bit of Zorro thrown in. After his origin was eventually established, writers latched onto the idea of Batman having a code of conduct that forbade using firearms or killing his enemies, and it stuck. It’s become every bit as iconic and important to his character as the death of his parents. Almost every time Batman has been seen holding a gun, it’s universally recognized as code for “Something is seriously wrong with Batman!” Often, it appears on covers as a WTF tease to suck readers in. In many ways, the gun, or at least the use of one, is Batman’s equivalent of kryptonite.

Why Batman should never use guns

But while it’s pretty universally accepted that Batman doesn’t use guns as a rule in the comics, the movies tend to be less consistent. In seven films, there’s only been one concrete reference to Batman refusing to use guns, when he tells Selina Kyle, “No guns, no killing,” in The Dark Knight Rises. And while no director has ever gone so far as to have Batman pick up a glock, many playfully skirt around the issue any way they can.

As previously mentioned, the Batmobile and other vehicles piloted by the Dark Knight frequently feature guns and other artillery. The rule against killing has been even more brazenly ignored, with Batman frequently sending foes to certain death with either casual indifference or willful intent, the most galling of which was the infamous “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you” moment from the end of Batman Begins.

This has, I’ve noticed, led to a certain divide among Batman fandom. For fans who mostly know the character from the movies, his rules against guns and killing are far less firmly established than it is for fans of the comics or the various animated series. This has led to a large portion of Batman fans coming to the conclusion that Batman’s code is not a hard and fast rule, or if it is, it shouldn’t be. They argue that Batman not killing his foes or refusing to use a gun under any circumstances is impractical. In real life, in order to truly make an impact on crime, Batman would have to kill people, and throwing the Joker repeatedly back in Arkham only to have him escape again and kill more people isn’t doing anyone any good.

To me, this argument misses the point of Batman entirely. First, it’s completely irrelevant to argue practicality about fictional stories, especially stories in science fiction or fantasy settings like comic books. Yes, in the real world, Batman would probably find himself in desperate kill-or-be-killed situations that would force him to off people quite frequently. But Batman doesn’t live in the real world. He lives in Gotham City, an exaggerated pulp/noir universe perpetually stuck in a pseudo-‘30s art deco world where a gangster movie is happening on every street corner every damn night. Batman doesn’t find himself in those situations because the writers are under no obligation to put him in those situations. Batman’s entire arsenal and fighting style are designed around nonlethal force. Batman can always take care of any situation with a Batarang instead of a gun, because it’s fiction and he can do whatever the writers need him to do. And the reason he keeps imprisoning the Joker over and over despite how futile it seems is no one wants to kill off Batman’s most popular nemesis. Duh.

But more importantly, arguing practicality with Batman is especially pointless, because Batman doesn’t do what he does for practical reasons. In case you didn’t notice, the entire premise of Batman is entirely impractical. If Batman really wanted to combat crime, he’d do far more good simply using his personal fortune to improve the police force, or better yet, to improve the economic situation of the city to wipe out poverty, a proven cause of high crime rates. Dressing up as his childhood boogeyman and going around taking down criminals one at a time would have almost no effect on crime overall. It’s a pointless endeavor that would, at best, only serve to feed his own guilty conscience.

So why do it then? Why become Batman? This is supposedly the “World’s Greatest Detective”; surely, he knows somewhere deep down that this isn’t the best way to go about things. The answer is pretty simple: Batman didn’t become Batman to wipe out crime. He became Batman in order to be the guy he wishes had been there the night his parents were killed.

Bruce Wayne isn’t fighting crime in a practical sense. He’s fighting the idea of crime, and his idea of crime is personified in Joe Chill, the man who murdered his parents. That’s what a criminal is to him. That’s what he must fight, and to do that, he must become crime’s opposite, which for him means Joe Chill’s opposite. Joe Chill was a coward, thus criminals are a “superstitious and cowardly lot”. Joe Chill killed his parents, therefore Batman must never kill. Joe Chill carried a gun, therefore Batman will never use guns. Batman doesn’t shun even the brandishing of guns because he has no use for one, but because guns, to him, are the symbol of everything he’s fighting against. Guns are the tools of superstitious and cowardly criminals. Batman, in his mind, is above them. Murder is an act of desperation that the cowardly Joe Chill resorted to, and Batman must never stoop so low. Batman is anti-crime, and if “crime” is Joe Chill, than Batman must never be anything like Joe Chill, even in appearance.

Batman’s entire character has revolved around this concept ever since the classic story “The Origin of Batman” from Batman #47*. In it, Batman finally tracks down Joe Chill, and must decide what to do now that he’s found him. It’s the defining moment for the character, when he chooses not to take revenge and not to kill.

[*This story was beautifully retold in an episode of Batman: The Brave and the Bold titled “Chill of the Night!”, which you should definitely check out if you haven’t seen it.]

Why Batman should never use guns

The best Batman stories are usually about this difference between justice and vengeance. Even Batman Begins touched on this point: “Justice is about harmony, revenge is about you making yourself feel better.” Chill is crime and injustice personified, therefore Batman is justice personified. Batman must never kill or carry a gun, not because it wouldn’t do any good to anyone, but because if he did, he wouldn’t be Batman anymore. To kill would make him like the criminal, the enemies of justice, and guns have no purpose but to kill. Guns are the tool of the criminal and therefore unjust. Batman is the enemy of the criminal and must never resort to their tactics.

I’m not necessarily saying this is a correct or even healthy worldview. I’m saying this is how Batman sees things. It’s the entire point of his character. And the more we get away from it, the more he ceases to be Batman. His story begins to lose all meaning, and he becomes just another vigilante action hero. So yeah, Batman driving around in a friggin’ tank bothers me. We’ve already seen these filmmakers get Superman wrong, we’ve seen signs that they’re getting Wonder Woman wrong, and now it seems like not even Batman is going to feel like himself in this movie. You may disagree, but to me, this is yet another sign that this movie is going to be oppressively dull.

You may also like...

  • CaptainCalvinCat

    Oh boy – who in his right mind thought, that this would be a good bat-mobile?

  • Batman exists in multiple mediums and across numerous tone levels and should not be pigeon holed, nor should there be a “definitive” version of the character that people must cite sources to justify. I am perfectly okay with a Batman using a gun if push came to shove, and putting them on a vehicle for the numerous reasons that he could use them (incapacitating vehicles primarily) makes sense.

    • Cameron Vale

      But there must be something about him that appeals to people, something consistent across all interpretations, rather than just a name.

      • A victim of a violent crime uses the wealth of his role as old money to literally fight back because the system itself is too broken to fix.

        Am I describing:
        Robin Hood
        Scarlet Pimpernel
        The Lone Ranger
        The Green Hornet

        Batman has a cast of characters, he has a look, he has a setting, and he has a very simple pitch. You can graft most of that on to nearly anything and come out the other end with a functional story. In fact the Club of Heroes (a group of individuals inspired by Batman) is a good example of how the concept of Batman would work as an Indian, a Knight, or a Swordsman.

  • Jonathan Campbell

    Pretty sure those turrents aren’t necessarily for killing- they are more likely to be used for blowing through walls and other heavy duty work. Batman carrying that kind of firepower isn’t new to the comics or the films. Almost everything he carries can be lethal if he wants it to be.

    And as a side note, if Batman were “realistic” then he has killed hundreds if not thousand of people already- beating the crap out of people, or knocking them out for more than a few minutes (via head trauma or not), batarangs etc.- all of that is very much going to leave corpses. People have died from a lot less than what Batman puts his enemies through.

    But that was an aside- more pertinently, Bruce Wayne DOES donate to the police, Bruce Wayne DOES do everything he can to help the poor and eradicate poverty. Bruce Wayne is a major philanthropist and is heavily involved in charitable work. But crime in Gotham is not rooted (just) in poverty- its rooted in the deep-seated corruption of its judiciary, local government and police force, and because it happens to be a breeding ground for diabolically intelligent and superpowered costumed psychopaths. Batman is very much necessary.

    I completely disagree- that idea that Batman does what he does because of an obsessive and irrational vendetta against the man who killed his parents and against crime itself is Frank Miller cynicism; Batman might have personal justice and even vengeance in mind, but that has long since stopped being his main driving force. Batman does what he does because he wants to save people- period. Batman doesn’t go out every night looking for Joe Chill to beat up; he goes out every night looking for the Bruce, Martha and Thomas Wayne’s of the world- the innocent victims who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Batman is a hero; he is a heroic character, living in a bleak and sinister world, but always fighting to do the right thing. He has long since reconciled himself to the idea that he will very likely die doing this, but he is okay with that, not because he is a vengeful fanatic, but because he feels his life is worth less than the lives of everyone else in the world, even the bad and rotten scum he fights every day.

    And THAT is why he doesn’t carry a gun.

    • First off, this is one of the most well-reasoned and compelling arguments disagreeing with me I’ve ever read on this site, so much respect.

      For me, the turret issue is mostly about the optics. Lethal or not, just the appearance of the militarized Batman bothers me. It’s the same reason I hated that running gag in The Dark Knight Returns where Batman keeps saying “I brought a gun!” and the reader goes “Oh no! Why’s Batman got a gun!?” and the “gun” always ends up be a grappling hook or a stun gun or fires rubber bullets or whatever. Whatever those gun turrets actually do, the fact that they look like guns and are prominently, permanently displayed as opposed to being hidden under the hood until needed just creates a very un-Batman image for me. Batman’s motif is supposed to be essentially ninja-Dracula. The focus on heavy artillery and SWAT-ish body armor lately bothers me.

      I will admit, I maybe leaned way to heavily in this article towards implying that Batman is some kind’ve dangerous psychotic whose efforts are futile and completely self-centered. That was not my intention. I now realize when I said Batman’s efforts would have no impact on crime, I should emphasized that I meant in the real world. In the world of Gotham, Batman obviously does change things for the better. The point I was going for is Batman’s crusade is largely symbolic, and that he sees the world in very black-n-white terms. Many Batman stories spend a great amount of time talking about symbols, because it’s the idea of Batman that does the most good. It’s the fear of him that really stops crime in significant numbers, not him personally stopping every single criminal. While I do believe he’s at least somewhat insane, I don’t believe he’s useless or does more harm than good. He is a hero, no question. He’s he ultimate orphan, taking the form of his childhood boogeymen to fight the true boogeymen of the world, and save other children from the fate he suffered.

      By the same token, when I said that Batman would do more good helping to eliminate poverty, I also meant in the real world. I probably should have acknowledged that most versions of Batman are avid philanthropists. I really could’ve used more detail on that point. In real world, money is power, and the best way to battle poverty or corruption is with money. In the real world it would be far more effective to use his wealth and political maneuvering to weed out corruption. Of course, this is a comic and that’s no fun to watch, so instead Batman breaks down their doors one by one and intimidates them into submission.

      Once again, thank you for being so reasonable. You raise some great points, and honestly, this article probably would’ve used another draft.

      • Jonathan Campbell

        “First off, this is one of the most well-reasoned and compelling arguments disagreeing with me I’ve ever read on this site, so much respect.”

        Its what I do.

        Though, I don’t think Batman actually DOES “stop crime in significant numbers”, not in the comics. Gotham is a hellhole and its implied that what Batman does is keep it from teetering into the brink; when he’s not there its a cesspool of crime and corruption and random senseless violence; when he is….its slightly less so. Not to get into the whole debate about how many of his enemies are only there because he is.

        Its the tragedy of the character; he’s fighting a war, and its a war that may never end, and he knows it. He may have few illusions that he will ever truly being an end to even half the chaos and madness that plagues the streets of his city.

        But he’ll do his damnest to try, and he’ll save as many people as he can along the way. He’s not really “Black-And-White”, he’s Black and Grey, at least where Gotham is concerned. But what separates him from someone like the Joker (depending on the interpretation, at least) is that he doesn’t use that as an excuse to give up, or give in, or let go of his sanity and morality.

  • Batman didn’t become Batman to wipe out crime. He became Batman in order to be the guy he wishes had been there the night his parents were killed.

    This is why I like the ending of The Dark Knight Rises, because it’s him finally moving on. Batman is an emotional cripple whose entire life has been defined by childhood trauma and to see him finally get over that, symbolised by him giving his mother’s pearls to Selina, is a great way to wrap up his story.

  • Skylar Zenas Mullins

    it’s worth noting that Wayne does attempt to improve the city with his wealth. he is often called a philanthropist. I agree with the no lethal guns thing, though batman has used gun-like devices before but they usually do something very different like placing a tracker or something like that.
    what always bugs me is how people look at batman not killing people and putting on a costume while going around beating up thugs as a sign of him being crazy or otherwise mentally unwell. completely forgetting that superman has the same rule on no killing and he dresses up in a costume to fight criminals. and so does flash and green lantern and wonder woman (depending on the continuity) and green arrow and the martian man hunter and pretty much every hero in DC bar a few exceptions. and it’s not like batman is the only hero without powers who does this either. not that batman doesn’t have issues and flaws but the being a hero and fighting bad guys isn’t one of them.

    • Cameron Vale

      Superheroes do heroic things in silly costumes because they were invented to capitalize on the runaway success of Superman, and eventually it just became a normal thing. Superman does it because he’s a space alien and this is normal to him, but this does not even remotely apply to Batman. And the vast majority of superheroes who lack powers are based on Batman, so pointing to them as examples is just begging the question. Also, one of Batman’s most salient qualities is his rivalry with the Joker, who is madness personified.

      • Skylar Zenas Mullins

        my point was in a world were everyone runs around with capes you can’t call someone weird for running around in a cape. I obviously like costumes and capes and the like otherwise I wound’t bother with superheroes would I.
        also superman was raised as clark kent and has no memories of his time on krypton so he would not see dressing that way as normal. of coarse it’s supposed to not be normal.

  • mamba

    I think in Batman’s case, you have to take it more literally.

    While he would never use a GUN (due to memories and the like), he obviously has no problem with WEAPONS in general, and to me, that’s what the new Batmobile is. Saying “batman doesn’t kill” is silly, of COURSE he does, and rather inventively at that, he’s done it dozens of times, if not hundreds…he just won’t SHOOT anyone coldly with a gun. He’ll throw them to their deaths, leave them to die in space, locked in a burning building…snap their neck with a swing kick (look it up!), but never “shoot” them.

    So why the Batmobile’s guns? Simple, they, like almost all the Batman’s weapons on his rides, simply are never to be used on a human. He’ll use rockets to destroy obstacles, free himself, incapacitate an enemy vehicle, but he won’t cross the line of pointing the barrel at someone and pulling the trigger. THAT’S the specific line he wont’ cross, but killing in general? No problem there!

    Batman’s problems would be a lot easier if he was willing to just shoot someone, but really now…what’s the difference between shooting a crook in the face with a gun, or taking your grappling hook launcher and hooking the neck of a criminal and pulling hard, sending them off a catwalk to their deaths? for most sane people, absolutely none, but to batman, it’s all the difference in the world…at least to him.

  • Derek Johns

    I like this article but I feel you missed an opportunity to reference the pilot episode of Batman Beyond. When it became clear he couldn’t handle some thugs he was forced to pull a gun on them and he was so horrified by having to do this he immediately retired.

    • That occurred to me, but I never found a spot to slip it in that felt right.

  • Dark Knight Returns is a great Batman story and he is seen using guns (“Rubber Bullets. Honest.”) and holding a shotgun or a rifle. True he also decries them. My point isn’t that you are wrong in your interpretation of Batman, I’m not certain with the myriad of interpretations of Batman (Adam West? Brave and the Bold? Corny/Gritty/Gothic/etc.) that him having some guns on the Batmobile necessarily destroys the essence of Batman.

    I do believe that Zach Snyder will destroy the essence of Batman and I can see why looking at these turrets is proof of that but I don’t think so. We’ll see but after Man of Steel, I’m concerned about tone and alternating between being bored and horrified.

  • MichaelANovelli

    The turrets in question look like 50 cals. I was always trained never to use them on people, not because it was wrong, necessarily (though it would classify as a “war crime”), but because such weapons are designed for larger vehicle/house-shaped targets, and trying to shoot humans with them would be horribly inefficient.

    I think these are more in line with the blockade-busting guns previous Batmobiles have had…

    • Gallen Dugall

      They look more like shotgun sized bores to me, which would afford a range of LTL ammo, but I suspect strongly that they are meant to be some kind of beam projector, because there’s no ammo feed.
      Any guesses what the two flanking flat turrets with the square barrels are? I’d guess smoke dischargers maybe?

      • MichaelANovelli

        They’re definitely an ejection port of some kind…

        • Gallen Dugall

          lol It could be a gas vent, chemical lasers have those!

          • Wizkamridr

            Maybe it will turn into a giant robot.

          • Gallen Dugall

            we can only hope because faith in giant robots is all we have sometimes Wizkamridr

  • Gallen Dugall

    The problem DC has is their movies are essentially made by marketing people based on the results of franchise name recognition surveys. This will be made for the general public that knows and cares nothing for the characters, but they’ll throw bone to the fans with sloppy references to things only they’ll get because they think that’s what those nerds really want, to explain things to everyone else. The plot and characters will serve only to move the action from one CGI scene to the next. It will be completely forgettable. Honestly Avengers would have been forgettable too, if it hadn’t been such an achievement of logistics and planning, and this doesn’t even have that to buoy it.

    • Alexa

      All of this, is why I don’t like Arrow. If you like it fine, but as you said with Batman, Arrow just feels like one big mish mash of references and what the general public expects from a vigilante type of hero.

      • Gallen Dugall

        One day they’ll realize they can create original characters without built in name recognition or the baggage that goes with them… *snicker*, nope couldn’t say that with a straight face.

  • Cameron Vale

    I vehemently oppose gun control and I fully agree with this.

    • Wizkamridr

      I’m a gun owner, and think the whole system is screwed up. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer as how to fix it.

  • Wizkamridr

    I guess I’m the only one who liked the alternate universe batman who was an alcoholic and used guns.

  • Alexa

    I loved your break down of Bats, and how making him “realistic” and “practical” is silly just based on the examples you gave of what true practicality would be. And again its fucking fiction, why do we have to be so tight ass about these things that should be off the wall. And really I’d probably be fine with this Batmobile of sorts, if yeah they didn’t put the turret on it. And again it kills me that Snyder and Goyer keep saying they love and respect comics and comic characters, yet really have no idea about how to present them. This might be studio interference or something, but still…

    • jokmank

      Snyder and Goyer saying that they love comics seems more obligatory rather than sincere. I mean, what else can they say, that they don’t give a damn about these characters and that they only do it to get paid? And if they really do like them, they really seem like those bitter fanboys who still want to like them, but deep inside, they feel ashamed that they like something that silly when they should care for “more mature stuff”.

      On the subject of Batman killing people, one of the reasons superheroes stopped being fun is when the writers started calling out the heroes for the no-kill policy, with villains like Carnage and having the Joker killing and torturing practically all of Batman’s allies. I understand the intention behind those stories – adding a new element of danger and higher stakes into these worlds, as well as some moral ambiguity. The problem is that that particular moral ambiguity – is it okay to kill a killer if that is the only real guarantee that he will not kill again? – is something that the entire governments and the finest minds of the world are struggling with, so forgive me for being arrogant and believing that when most comic book writers (not all of them, but most) are writing about such subjects, they are kinda biting more than they can chew. And what’s worse, when they actually suggest that maybe heroes should kill, it’s never a sincere belief, but this bratty “shock for shock’s sake” attitude, that’s always hiding under the hypocritical excuse of “why aren’t you open to new ideas, man?”

      • Alexa

        Yeah and get what they mean, but again its fiction, you can draw inspiration from real life, but it doesn’t have to mirror it completely. Because that well be pretty boring. And really you should never hate yourself for loving stuff like comics, cartoons, or anything that is seen for “kids”. Its okay to like, appreciate, and yes get somewhat excited about that kind of stuff. Just balance it out, and if you don’t like it, what’s the point of being in a job where you have to deal with it everyday?

        • jokmank

          Well, Benjamins, for starters…

          Other than that, it is a real problem for a lot of good comic book artists and writers who want to write/draw non-superhero comics but can’t because DC and Marvel won’t let them.

          Which is why now there’s a bunch of writers from UK writing cynical “parodies” and “reconstructions” of super-heroes which boils down to “superheroes are arrogant assholes who beat people up, and get away with it”, because “that’s what that wish-fullfillment fantasy is all about” (I’m looking at you, Mark Millar).

  • The_Stig

    I support the Second Amendment and I think Batman should never use guns. It goes against everything he stands for and beyond the desire for more splosions I never got why every film adaptation of Batman since 1989 has to arm the Batmobile with huge cannons.

    Batman with a big-ass machine gun mounted on the Batmobile is like a Rabbi driving around with an eagle and swastika hood ornament on his car.

  • Wizkamridr

    To the best of my knowledge, batsy uses fear and intimidation. I don’t find that inspiring. Just my opinion.

    • Gallen Dugall

      Is that what growly voice is supposed to be?

      • CaptainCalvinCat

        Apparently – but I can’t help but giggle, when I hear him growling. ^^

    • TheCrazyFish

      Using fear and intimidation as a weapon to make people do what you want… I think we have a word for that. It starts with a “T” and it’s what the United States has been crusading against for the last 13 or so years…

  • Gallen Dugall

    I support the Second Amendment and Gun Control and even I think Batman should never use guns.
    Unless the gun is bat themed… and the bullets too.

  • Lord ShinyPants

    A little tangential but probably worth pointing out is that this isn’t just a Batman movie, it’s a Superman movie, too. Those guns might be mean for use against evil robots, alien monsters, or evil robot alien monster pirate ninjas. Whatever Batman capedly crusades against may be a lot tougher than what we’ve seen him fight in movies to date.

    • Gallen Dugall

      nope, a scene leaked of a chase with an ordinary car that Batman is shooting at with his guns

      • Lord ShinyPants

        Oh. Um….

        Would you believe evil robot alien monster pirate ninja… transformer?

        OK, I’m probably reaching at this point. But if that shows up, I sooo want credit.

  • Peon

    “Why Batman should never use guns” = Because then I’d have 1 less thing to make fun of him for

    • Wizkamridr
      • Peon

        LOL……of course, the big difference is that Chuck Norris fans really get the jokes and understand irony, because it’s all too exaggerated to take seriously. It’s hard to measure realism is these kinds of movies, but at least take a shot somewhere near a target. Just because you’ve had good story writers over the years doesn’t mean I’ll forget about how little sense I can make of you.

  • stephenmonteith

    In “Batman Returns”, Batman sets a member of the Red Triangle Gang on fire with his afterburner and blows another one up with a bomb. In his seven movies so far, he’s either directly or indirectly caused the deaths of at least one major villain per movie (“Batman and Robin” being the only exception). He’s a killer. Not using guns is simply a naïve choice he makes.

    • Wizkamridr

      Fanboys will argue that he doesn’t do it in the cannon/ current comics and therefore not do it in the movies. However, no one has a problem with batsy using kryptonite against superman, even though it is a lethal weapon against the man of steel. He could always use gold kryptonite which just takes away superman’s powers.

      • stephenmonteith

        Good point. He does use guns in the comics, as well. He shot Darkseid “with a gun”. Some may say that was an isolated incident, but there’s no such thing. If you’ll do it in one instance, then you’re saying there exist circumstances under which you will do it; ergo, Batman uses guns.

  • TheCrazyFish

    You do realize, of course, the “Batman doesn’t kill” rule from the comics only came about because the publishers didn’t want the writers killing off interesting villains. Right?

    And the fact that you’re repeating the same constantly debunked “Batman doesn’t even give to charity!!” argument proves you know nothing about Batman. Seriously, do a google search for “The Wayne Foundation.” He RUNS two charities himself, and supports many more! A large number of both movie and comic plots even involve Wayne-organized charity events. There is NO WAY you could have missed his charity work if you really read the comics.

    Batman does have a problem with guns… sometimes. The movies have certainly ignored this, and even the comics can’t really agree on it. Even when he doesn’t use a gun he’s perfectly willing to use other lethal weapons if he has to. So, really, either interpretation is absolutely fine.