Batmen With Guns

As this blog is still very much in its rookie season, I've obviously still got a lot to learn. But one thing that my trips around the comics blog scene this week have taught me is that you ain't nobody in this business until you've posted either a "The sky is falling!"-style gripe or a "HolycrapObama'sinacomic!"-level rave about Batman and Darkseid's mutual "deaths" in Final Crisis #6.

Be that as it may, there's little chance for this fledgling blog to contribute anything of significance to the debate by posting the same old type of review nearly a week after the issue in question came out. But, as polarized as the two sides have been, both have generally agreed on (or at least glossed over) the answer to following question:

Did Batman really break his vow when he used a gun to kill Darkseid? I say no.

I mean, yeah, Batman did fire a big sci-fi gun right at Darkseid's chest. There's no denying that. And, yes, Batman did vow never to use firearms in his pursuit of justice. Whether or not you still accept Year Two as canon, this aspect of the character can be found throughout the comics' publication history. So while it's clear that the letter of the law was violated here, I think Batman remained entirely within the perimeter of his own moral code when he offed the big bad.

To properly examine the issue, you have to look at what would motivate Batman to take a vow against guns. The obvious answer here is that his parents were murdered with a gun, so Bruce Wayne knows firsthand the pain and destruction that guns can cause. Yet Batman, as driven as he is, doesn't wage his endless nightly crusade against guns themselves. He didn't hone his body to the peak of human perfection to chase after Smith & Wesson or to bring down the NRA. And he willingly works alongside the police who use guns regularly in their line of duty. So it stands to reason that Batman isn't against the GUN so much as he is against MURDER.

Though don't think for a minute that a Dark Knight stalking criminals in the streets of the Gotham night wouldn't be murderous. Even if he used it in self defense. Batman is such a physical match for the majority of those he fights that he could easily kill them with his bare hands if he so desired. Introducing a gun into the mix would make Batman nothing other than an executioner. As long as Batman boasts such physical superiority over his opponent, he could not KILL without committing MURDER.

Finally, Batman seeks JUSTICE. In the world in which he operates, muggers and crime bosses can be brought to trial where they will have to answer for their transgressions. If Batman were not to respect the social order and allow sentencing to occur in its proper place, he would take his city right back down the path of chaos that led to Thomas and Martha Wayne's deaths in the first place.

Darkseid is no common criminal. For most of his comics career he was the feared worst enemy of a superhero team that called itself the New Gods, for crying out loud. He's a monster. Practically Satan himself. Even written by Grant Morrison, Batman would seem to be an underdog when going up against a supernatural adversary such as this, gun or not. And if Darkseid were to be captured and detained, what court could bring him to justice?

When Batman says he's making an "exception" for Darkseid, he's not saying "Darkseid, you're so evil that I'm going to break one of my cardinal rules." He's actually saying, "Darkseid, you're an evil of such magnitude that I haven't even thought up a rule that covers you!"

I refuse to read this so-called final adventure of the Dark Knight in this so-called final crisis as the story of a man who ultimately gives up on his ideals. Instead, it's the tale of a hero who lives up to his quest for justice even to his last breath.

I'm glad Batman shot Darkseid. If I were in alone in a room facing the sinister lord of Apokolips with a gun capable of firing a bullet made of some kind of New Gods Kryptonite, would I shoot him too? Heck yeah, I would. And I hope you'd do the same.