Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
(I wasn't quite sure what forum this fit in... moderators, please feel free to relocate if necessary.)

OK, so the other day SuperDaisy and I took our 2 nephews to see the new Batman. Now, I have to say up-front that I've never been a huge Batman fan and so never really followed it. The last Batman I ever saw was the one years and years ago with Jack Nicholson and I was too young at the time to really care about any political messages that might have been in it.

OK, first, the new one is pretty kewl and fun to watch. But, aside from that, I realized how EXTREMELY anti-gun/pro-gov't the Batman series is... it sort of shocked me a little b/c I had no idea how propagandist Batman really is. Gotham, of course, is supposed to depict D.C. And all through the movie the message was clear: guns are the weapons of criminals, the good guys don't use guns.

Yesterday I was watching (for a while) a documentary on the history of Batman and learned that Batman's parents were killed by a MWAG. Apparently this heavily influenced Batman into being an anti-2A'er. During the history of the Batman story there was a brief time where Batman actually started using a gun. But it was brief and ended when he realized he was using the same tool as the villains. He concluded that it was for more brave and impressive to defeat the gun-toting criminals with tools other than guns -- and so he stopped using guns and never returned.

The message in this movie is clear: guns are bad, and anyone who has a gun is no different than an MWAG.

The other thing I thought was ridiculous propaganda was the fact that Batman was always completely unable to kill (or allow to be killed) even the worst, most detestable and out-of-control psychotic villain. Even when it was obvious that nothing could contain and ultimately stop the Joker, Batman was unable to kill him. Batman is a bleeding-heart idiot.

Here's a lengthy post some other guy wrote about his 10 reasons why Batman is pure propaganda: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/ar ... 56796.html

Good movie, but I struggled to enjoy it b/c the propaganda was so over the top and repulsive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
bane said:
The other thing I thought was ridiculous propaganda was the fact that Batman was always completely unable to kill (or allow to be killed) even the worst, most detestable and out-of-control psychotic villain. Even when it was obvious that nothing could contain and ultimately stop the Joker, Batman was unable to kill him. Batman is a bleeding-heart idiot.
I pointed this out to my wife, the fact that the good guys never do what a real responsible guy would do (in appropriate situations, of course): actually kill the bad guy. No, I haven't seen The Dark Knight, but it seems that MOST shows are this way. The good guy just can't kill anyone, or else he'd suddenly turn "bad". blah.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
I definitly see what you are saying however I would argue that batman doesn't use gun's but he doesn't kill anyone either. If he can stop the threat with out deadly force then he should right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
I didn't dig the anti-gun theme, but I did like th "stop the threat with minimal force" message. C'mon now, the man has all of these other kewl gadgets, why would he needa gun? I'll gladly give up my guns if I had half of the kewl stuff he had at his disposal. :drool:

gf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
That would be the mantra of all super heroes - no guns, superman doesn't use a gun, wonder woman doesn't use a gun, even aquaman doesn't use a gun. While I didn't really pick up a anti-gun theme in the movie, I did pick up the idea that he didn't need a gun because he wanted the system to work. You catch the bad guy and the system puts them away. You kill the bad guy and no one learns from it. I've never expected super heroes to kill anyone and I think it's more a God complex in that if they did kill they would cease to be a super hero. Plus I think people want to see that distinction - bad kill, good save. Commissioner Gordon carries a gun and isn't afraid to use it, and to me is the real hero of the movie.

Now if you really want some political agenda - watch Wall-E!

PS - who thinks that pencil trick was coooool?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
Dick Tracy uses a gun, doesn't he? Of course, he isn't a "superhero".

ian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I guess the part that annoyed me the most was not that he did NOT use a gun or that he had BETTER tools at his disposal or that he used the LEAST amount of force necessary. I understand the superhero paradigm.

What I most found fault with was the fact that even in the face of the OBVIOUS inability to contain the Joker, Batman was completely unwilling to do what was necessary to contain him absolutely. IMHO, we have no room in society to NOT allow for the death penalty at the very least in the extreme, and of course completely unlikely in reality, position of having an evil person that we are incapable of containing and who is intent on mass hysteria and mass destruction.

I guess I view the Joker as a potential and very likely future North Korea. The Joker, to me, embodies Kim Jong-Il -- and Batman's refusal to deal with him in the only manner he the Joker allowed, was telling to me of the propaganda the Batman franchise is about.

I also thought it was hilarious that for all of Gotham's (D.C.'s) anti-gun rhetoric, it was obvious they were unable to contain guns OR crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
**SPOILER ALERT**
(if you haven't seen the movie yet, my post may contain spoilers)

L'attente said:
T I did pick up the idea that he didn't need a gun because he wanted the system to work. You catch the bad guy and the system puts them away.
That's what I got from it too.

I really didn't see any of the propaganda that Bane did. There was small (if any, I don't really remember it) mention in the Dark Knight of his refusal to use a gun. There was a scene where he was attacking the SWAT team to prevent them from shooting, but that was because they hadn't realized yet that the Joker made the hostages look like enemies in order to trick the SWAT team into killing them - it wasn't an anti-gun statement.

There were numerous instances where Batman mourned the loss of life, and was even willing to turn himself in to hopefully stop more lives being lost. If caring about human life makes him a bleeding-heart idiot, then I guess I am one too. :raisedbrow:

Lets face it - we all carry guns because we feel they are the best means to defend ourselves. If someone is willing to use deadly force against us or our families, we have made the decision to use deadly force back against them and stop the threat. Do any of us REALLY want to kill someone? If there was a less-leathal option that we knew would be as immediate and effective at stopping a bad guy, and would immobilize them until the police could come and arrest them, wouldn't we all choose it instead? :dunno: Unfortunately at this point, there isn't one, and we're "stuck" with a gun as defense. Bruce Wayne/Batman has the skills/money/resources to use other options - and so he does. I'd like to think we would too if we had them.

What I've been pondering on since watching the movie are all the questions and ethical issues Batman raises. He catches the bad guys - but doesn't punish them, he gives them over to the authorities and the system to do that. The means he uses to catch the bad guys though are "outside" of the system. If China won't extradite a criminal, he will go to China and bring him back himself - and deliver him to Commissioner Gordon and the D.A. Batman's ethics are somewhat interesting and conflicted... but so are ours. Batman believes in the system - as I believe most of us do. He sees though, that it is imperfect and flawed - as do we. He sees bad people getting away, and justice not being done at times - as do we. He sees the police having their hands tied, and having to live by rules and regulations and ethics as they try to battle people who have none - which we also see. He is frustrated by all of this - as we are. So he decides to do something about it. He breaks rules of engagement and ethical principles - in order to get the bad guy, or to get information. Are we comfortable with that? Aren't there times when we have looked at someone who has not been convicted of a crime we believe they have committed, and we wish something could be done? At the same time, is it up to us to "veto" the results of our justice system because we disagree with a verdict?

Something to think about.

Batman crosses certain ethical lines to get accomplished what he feels needs to be. He has the means to do so. He believes in the justice system, and is not willing to cross the line of deadly force. Seems o.k. to me. :dunno:

As far as being unwilling to kill the Joker, so was Commissioner Gordon. Gordon had a shotgun to his head and could have easily killed him, knowing what he had done. Why didn't he? Is Batman being held to the same standard? I believe that Batman holds himself to the same standard. The police can and should use only the force necessary to stop the threat and aprehend the suspect, allowing the system to dispose of them. Police are not (and should not be) judge, jury, and executioner. Why should Batman be?

Oh, and I always thought Gotham was much closer to New York than D.C.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
L'attente said:
That would be the mantra of all super heroes - no guns, superman doesn't use a gun, wonder woman doesn't use a gun, even aquaman doesn't use a gun. While I didn't really pick up a anti-gun theme in the movie, I did pick up the idea that he didn't need a gun because he wanted the system to work. You catch the bad guy and the system puts them away. You kill the bad guy and no one learns from it. I've never expected super heroes to kill anyone and I think it's more a God complex in that if they did kill they would cease to be a super hero. Plus I think people want to see that distinction - bad kill, good save. Commissioner Gordon carries a gun and isn't afraid to use it, and to me is the real hero of the movie.
The only problem with this logic is here: Batman doesn't have super powers, he's just a guy in a suit. Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Wolverine, etc. all are unique in that they are physically different from EVERYONE else. I mean, bullets bounce off Superman and if he flies fast enough around the earth he can cause it to spin backwards.... why would he need a gun?

Batman, OTOH, is a normal guy, sure he's got lots of money and a good physique, but it's his TOOLS and INGENUITY that make him special. I would totally support a Bat-Gun... oh baby...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
GeneticsDave said:
L'attente said:
That would be the mantra of all super heroes - no guns, superman doesn't use a gun, wonder woman doesn't use a gun, even aquaman doesn't use a gun. While I didn't really pick up a anti-gun theme in the movie, I did pick up the idea that he didn't need a gun because he wanted the system to work. You catch the bad guy and the system puts them away. You kill the bad guy and no one learns from it. I've never expected super heroes to kill anyone and I think it's more a God complex in that if they did kill they would cease to be a super hero. Plus I think people want to see that distinction - bad kill, good save. Commissioner Gordon carries a gun and isn't afraid to use it, and to me is the real hero of the movie.
The only problem with this logic is here: Batman doesn't have super powers, he's just a guy in a suit. Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Wolverine, etc. all are unique in that they are physically different from EVERYONE else. I mean, bullets bounce off Superman and if he flies fast enough around the earth he can cause it to spin backwards.... why would he need a gun?

Batman, OTOH, is a normal guy, sure he's got lots of money and a good physique, but it's his TOOLS and INGENUITY that make him special. I would totally support a Bat-Gun... oh baby...
I figured this would happen, and I totally know what you're saying because I argue the same point - Batman is not really a super hero, he wasn't born with the ability to fly, or some spinning superness or even gills to swim under water - but for ease of topic and since he does get lumped in with super hero's most of the time I choose to categorize him as one for this post. Dick Tracy has never been grouped as a super hero.

And maybe that's the distinction between hero (like Dick Tracy) and super hero - where one uses a gun and the other goes beyond that - just an idea. Batman is just a guy in a suit, but he doesn't find the need for a gun either - take away his suit (which isn't wholly invincible) and he might find need for a gun too - the argument there seems a little shaky though because even when he's down he doesn't go for a gun, just like superman when he looses his super powers he doesn't go for a gun.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
Maybe they don't go for guns because they aren't training normally to use them :)

Dick Tracy is not a super hero for a specific reason. He's a detective, a sworn officer. His character does his job. Batman on the other hand has a secret identity and is not technically a super-hero, he's a costumed crimefighter. Thus Dick Tracy (who does not have a secret identity or special powers) could never be categorized as a super-hero or costumed crimefighter.

It's all technicality, but typically one of the features of a super-hero (someone better than any of us) is a strong moral code, including a willingness to risk one’s own safety in the service of good without expectation of reward. Such a code often includes a refusal or strong reluctance to kill or wield lethal weapons. So, while it may not be practical or what a normal person should do, it's also fantasy and therefore difficult to claim that there is any REAL agenda behind the story.

Now, if you had a Dick Tracy equivalent who went around spouting off anti-gun propaganda, I would totally agree with the OP and not support such "entertainment". Batman doesn't come across that way in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
L'attente said:
Now if you really want some political agenda - watch Wall-E!
I'm curious... which 'political agenda' is being referred to here???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
L'attente said:
environmentalism and consumerism
Perhaps I should clarify my question. Certainly I did understand the two main messages of that movie but by 'political agenda' I am accustomed to understanding that the agenda being promoted does not have any basis in fact and is essentially bull. Is that what you meant to imply -- and if so, care to elaborate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Here's the plot of ALL the Batman movies if set in a more reasonable world:

A bad guy mugs the Wayne family at gun point in Crime Alley. Dr. Thomas Wayne distracts the bad guy while his wife Martha pulls a concealed revolver from her purse and shoots the bad guy, thus saving their lives. Despite using an illegal weapon, the use of force by Mrs. Wayne results in Gotham City repealing it's strict gun laws. Gun ownership increases and crime all but disappears in Gotham. The Wayne's die of old age and son Bruce, a world-renowned bat biologist, takes over the company and donates a trizillion dollars to the NRA.

The end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
I didn't get an anti-gun message from The Dark Knight. I did some research on Batman and found the following clips and cover from Batman comics:

http://quickstopentertainment.com/comic ... illing.jpg
http://quickstopentertainment.com/comic ... ngling.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/ ... ossack.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/Sam655321/575.jpg

A guy on this forum said: "In the 1940's Batman did carrie a gun and killed a few people but those storys are no longer part of his history.Also in the late 80's or early 90's Batman teamed up with Joe Chill to stop a guy called the Reaper.Batman carried and used the gun that Chill killed his parants with but he did not kill anyone."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
apollosmith said:
Here's the plot of ALL the Batman movies if set in a more reasonable world:

A bad guy mugs the Wayne family at gun point in Crime Alley. Dr. Thomas Wayne distracts the bad guy while his wife Martha pulls a concealed revolver from her purse and shoots the bad guy, thus saving their lives. Despite using an illegal weapon, the use of force by Mrs. Wayne results in Gotham City repealing it's strict gun laws. Gun ownership increases and crime all but disappears in Gotham. The Wayne's die of old age and son Bruce, a world-renowned bat biologist, takes over the company and donates a trizillion dollars to the NRA.

The end.
NICE! :lol2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
apollosmith said:
Here's the plot of ALL the Batman movies if set in a more reasonable world:

A bad guy mugs the Wayne family at gun point in Crime Alley. Dr. Thomas Wayne distracts the bad guy while his wife Martha pulls a concealed revolver from her purse and shoots the bad guy, thus saving their lives. Despite using an illegal weapon, the use of force by Mrs. Wayne results in Gotham City repealing it's strict gun laws. Gun ownership increases and crime all but disappears in Gotham. The Wayne's die of old age and son Bruce, a world-renowned bat biologist, takes over the company and donates a trizillion dollars to the NRA.

The end.
I'm sorry but this is the best reply to this thread yet.... :lol3: :ROFL: :lol3: :ROFL: :lol3: :ROFL: :lol3:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
thering said:
apollosmith said:
Here's the plot of ALL the Batman movies if set in a more reasonable world:

A bad guy mugs the Wayne family at gun point in Crime Alley. Dr. Thomas Wayne distracts the bad guy while his wife Martha pulls a concealed revolver from her purse and shoots the bad guy, thus saving their lives. Despite using an illegal weapon, the use of force by Mrs. Wayne results in Gotham City repealing it's strict gun laws. Gun ownership increases and crime all but disappears in Gotham. The Wayne's die of old age and son Bruce, a world-renowned bat biologist, takes over the company and donates a trizillion dollars to the NRA.

The end.
I'm sorry but this is the best reply to this thread yet.... :lol3: :ROFL: :lol3: :ROFL: :lol3: :ROFL: :lol3:
AMEN :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top