Do you think Super Heroes should/can use Guns?

[ExtravagantEvil]

Pretty self explanatory.
We all have our pictures of super heroes, the Modern myths and legend figures that we've grown up on, and we all have mental images of super heroes. They may be similar, but there's always unique differences. Particularly, we all think of various methods of combating evil. Most of it unarmed, melee, or shooting lasers out of your eyes or what have you.

However, when you picture Super heroes, do you ever imagine them with run of the mill firearms? This question came to me recently, because the Movie Posters for the Captain America film commonly show him wielding a WWII era pistol (I'm no fire arms expert), and I want to know if the Playground's mental image of superheroism can include gun wielding super heroes.

My Opinion on this is that, aesthetically, it doesn't work. I ust can't picture the heroes running around with regular weapons and such. It's always been the thugs that use them and that just messes with the Super heroic archetype as I see it.

So, what do you guys think?

[Tengu_temp]

Sure, it can work. The biggest problem is that most guns are lethal weapons, and whether heroes should use lethal force or not is a different matter entirely and depends a lot on the circumstances. But it can work. Unless your name is Rob Liefeld.

[Fjolnir]

Cap does carry a gun as part of his WWII era equipment, he usually abandons it in favor of his highly effective shield but the Ultimates cap still carries a gun. Though usually gunhaving his saved for antiheroes and vigilantes

[Telasi]

Superheroes certainly can use mundane firearms. I don't think they generally should, but they can. It can even work, if the character is right. Ultimately, though, I don't think superheroes in general should be in the habit of killing, and that's what a gun is for. This, of course, is purely my own opinion.

[Private-Prinny]

I think Tengu hit the nail on the head with this one. Most superheroes don't walk around with firearms because it would be very easy to accidentally kill someone, and the hero's typical endgame is prison, not a morgue.

Granted, that only applies to heroes who are supposed to be ordinary humans. Compared to Superman's powers, the Flash's superspeed, or a Green Lantern Ring, a firearm doesn't work quite as well in comparison.

[TheThan]

It really does depend on the super hero.

Most superheroes have powers that are just as lethal (if not more so) than any gun in existence. So at this point what’s the difference between being eviscerated by wolverine or mowed down in a hail of gun fire by the punisher? You’re still just as dead. In the comic book world, a lot of times guns are far less lethal than the array of superpowers that exist out there anyway.

So I say sure why not? Heck heroes have been carrying guns since near the invention of guns, so sure let them have guns.

[Tragic_Comedian]

Personally, I think that a gun toting superhero is just too mundane and boring. And that's not taking into account all the political mumbo jumbo it would give rise to.

[Zevox]

In general, I don't think of Superheroes as using guns, no. This is simply because anyone can use guns - if that's their means of superhero-ing, what exactly is separating them from any soldier/secret agent/random dude with a gun who decides to go vigilante? It doesn't add up for me. Most superpowers generally provide a better means of fighting villains than conventional firearms anyway, and superpowers that don't usually strike me as, well, boring.

On the other hand, if you could make them sufficiently superhero-ish while still wielding a gun, it could perhaps work, I just don't see that as being easy. I'm hard-pressed to think of any examples. If I liked Captain America, maybe him using guns in the movie would work, but I don't like Cap and haven't/won't see the movie. I think a few X-Men characters have used guns, but I never liked any of them. No, I just can't think of any offhand.

Zevox

[Dr.Epic]

My Opinion on this is that, aesthetically, it doesn't work. I ust can't picture the heroes running around with regular weapons and such. It's always been the thugs that use them and that just messes with the Super heroic archetype as I see it.

So, what do you guys think?

Depends on the hero. Batman for instance, no, never. Other guys like Frank Castle, I don't see why not.

Really, the Golden Age wouldn't really see these types of things, but with the Silver Age and heroes getting more gritty I don't see why not. I mean Iron Man is (based on what I've seen) a (borderline) alcoholic. Does that sound like something a superhero should be? I mean, if you can't picture a hero running around with guns, can you picture them with a scotch in one hand?

[Tragic_Comedian]

Batman shot (and killed) people in his first stories.

[Dr.Epic]

Batman shot (and killed) people in his first stories.

WHAT?!?!?

Well, there was also a story where he turned into a baby during the Golden Age so take from that what you will. I guess I'm just thinking the modern depiction in films and such.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'll agree with TheThan and Zevox. Using a gun doesn't seem very "super," and most super heroes don't need them.

That doesn't mean that a super hero can't use a gun. Taking the WWII Captain America example, he's a soldier during the biggest war of all time, so of course he has a gun. He really doesn't even use it that much in the movie, but he does use it. I think it's just until he gets the vibranium shield which he can throw and catch again.

How about War Machine? Sure, he's got the suit, but it's still loaded with guns and missiles and stuff. He's not even an anti-hero like the Punisher. Even Iron Man's repulsor blasts are basically just high tech guns. To me, this basically just comes down to a difference between using inherent abilities versus technology. If there was a super hero who shot bullets out of his hands, would we still be having this conversation?

[Dr.Epic]

That doesn't mean that a super hero can't use a gun. Taking the WWII Captain America example, he's a soldier during the biggest war of all time, so of course he has a gun. He really doesn't even use it that much in the movie, but he does use it. I think it's just until he gets the vibranium shield which he can throw and catch again.

Throwing and catching a shield takes more time than pulling a trigger. Not to mention he could, oh, I don't know...USE THE SHIELD AS A SHIELD as he fires off rounds. Just a thought, that's all.

[KillianHawkeye]

Throwing and catching a shield takes more time than pulling a trigger. Not to mention he could, oh, I don't know...USE THE SHIELD AS A SHIELD as he fires off rounds. Just a thought, that's all.

Well, yes, he does that too. He uses the shield as a shield quite a lot.

[Dr.Epic]

Well, yes, he does that too. He uses the shield as a shield quite a lot.

But you can't use it as that when you throw it. See the problem there?

[Loki_42]

Depends on the hero. Batman for instance, no, never.

But Batman has a grapple gun.

[Dr.Epic]

But Batman has a grapple gun.

Okay, name one superhero who uses a grappling gun as a hand gun.

http://rorschachcostume.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rorschach1.gif

He doesn't count.

[Tragic_Comedian]

WHAT?!?!?

Well, there was also a story where he turned into a baby during the Golden Age so take from that what you will. I guess I'm just thinking the modern depiction in films and such.

It didn't last long. He's had his rule against killing for much longer.

[Loki_42]

Okay, name one superhero who uses a grappling gun as a hand gun.

http://rorschachcostume.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rorschach1.gif

He doesn't count.
Well, Ror... Damn you!

With my original example, in many incarnations I've seen, Batman does things like dropping people from a great height before grappling/catching them. It's certainly a psychological weapon.

[Tengu_temp]

Really, the Golden Age wouldn't really see these types of things, but with the Silver Age and heroes getting more gritty I don't see why not.


Well, there was also a story where he turned into a baby during the Golden Age so take from that what you will.

You seem to have the ages mixed up. The Golden Age was during the 40s, when superhero comics just started, and was mostly serious. The Silver Age, when things became silly and light-hearted (as well as childish and shallow, quite often), started in the sixties. The Bronze Age, with its grittier stories and lots of social commentary, started in the eighties. The Iron/Dark Age, with anti-heroes armed to the teeth with guns and pouches, started and mercifully died in the nineties. The current era doesn't really have a name yet.

[Dr.Epic]

Well, Ror... Damn you!

With my original example, in many incarnations I've seen, Batman does things like dropping people from a great height before grappling/catching them. It's certainly a psychological weapon.

Yeah, but he never killed them and I thought that was sort of the point of Batman. There was that line he would never cross. Like in the Nolan films. He didn't kill Ra's Al Ghul, he just let him die. And in the Dark Knight when he dropped the gangster from the fire escape. He was counting on the fall not killing them.

[Loki_42]

Okay, just to start this off, I am not being serious. Anything that sounds a little rude, you can safely assume was a joke. This entire topic is actually a real-world conversation that me and the OP had for fun, because I like screwing with him with incredibly illogical arguments and seeing if he can break me.

With that out of the way, the OP asked if Superheroes should/can use guns. Now, "use" has a lot of possible interpretations. OP doesn't say anything about shooting guns. Batman wouldn't kill, but his whole MO is based around the threat of something really bad happening, and he does use intimidation and threats. Some of which he uses his grapple gun for. And if we're getting really into semantics, he asked if they can, to which I reply with a resounding yes, assuming they either have the proper paperwork to carry a gun, or don't get caught.

[Devonix]

He uses the shield as a shield a lot. Its just that the shield can hit things around corners whereas a bullet cannot.

[Dr.Epic]

He uses the shield as a shield a lot. Its just that the shield can hit things around corners whereas a bullet cannot.

They do in Wanted.

[Tragic_Comedian]

Yeah, but he never killed them and I thought that was sort of the point of Batman.
It is now. It's firmly been established that Batman won't kill and won't carry a gun. The Golden Age stories are really just a case of characterization marching on.


He didn't kill Ra's Al Ghul, he just let him die.
That's arguably the same thing. I thought that was kind of lame, really.

[Traab]

A lot of superheroes use guns, they are just futuristic versions of them. Things like lasers or energy blasters, stuff like that. Obviously thats done so the censors can make them not put holes in people if they dont want to, and utterly destroy what they want to utterly destroy, but they are still guns imo. Most dont use them because they are either overkill or useless. Against thugs? Overkill. Since most heroes dont kill bad guys a gun is silly. Only someone like hawkeye, or longshot could pull off nonlethal shots with total precision. Against many of the various big bads a regular gun is useless. They are either armored, or bullet proof due to abilities, or are magneto and can catch your bullet and lodge it in your own forehead. Plus, most superheroes already have powers that are way better than bullets.

[Devonix]

Superheroes do and have killed including Superman and Batman. They just do as a last resort. The're just good enough at what they do that they don't usually have to.

[Traab]

Superheroes do and have killed including Superman and Batman. They just do as a last resort. The're just good enough at what they do that they don't usually have to.

Very true, but thats the problem with a regular old fashioned gun. You cant shoot someone with it and guarantee that it wont be lethal when you dont want it to be 100 times out of 100. Unless you are hawkeye, or tenten. :p Lasers or other energy blasts? Easily adjusted in comic book land the be as lethal or nonlethal as you need.

[Worira]

That's arguably the same thing. I thought that was kind of lame, really.

So if someone walks up to Batman and commits suicide, he's caused Batman to break a vow even the Joker never could? If Bruce Wayne doesn't use all his finances to help starving children in third-world countries, it's as bad as shooting them in the face?

[Tragic_Comedian]

So if someone walks up to Batman and commits suicide, he's caused Batman to break a vow even the Joker never could? If Bruce Wayne doesn't use all his finances to help starving children in third-world countries, it's as bad as shooting them in the face?

Now you're just being silly. It's about being able to prevent it and doing nothing.

[Worira]

Well, yes, I am.The purpose being to illustrate the absurdity of your own point by providing morally analogous scenarios that can be easily recognized as incorrect or absurd.

[Jerthanis]

Well, yes, I am.The purpose being to illustrate the absurdity of your own point by providing morally analogous scenarios that can be easily recognized as incorrect or absurd.


The difference is that in Batman Begins, he saw that Ras was on a train headed for a specific place, gave someone else instructions to blow up the train tracks it would have to travel over on its way to that place, then he beat up Ras and made sure he was still on the train which was doomed to crash and explode, certainly killing all still aboard.

Then he said, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" and escaped himself, leaving mere instants for Ras to even realize he was even in danger before being killed horribly.

Saying Batman didn't kill Ras in Batman Begins is like saying the Joker didn't kill Rachel Dawes in Dark Knight... I mean, all he did was tie her to a bomb and set the timer... he didn't kill her, he just engineered a situation where her life was in serious peril and then didn't save her.

[Worira]

Oh, my bad then. The way I had remembered, Ras had set the train to asplode for some nefarious reason or other, then got his escape plan ruined by Batman.

[Tyndmyr]

Batman shot (and killed) people in his first stories.

Oh, that's nothing. He recently killed apocalypse with a god-killing bullet he kept from when it was fired backward through time.

Those of you making the :smallfurious: face...you are correct. It was terrible. Guns can be done good or bad, like everything else. Batman...it makes sense. His parents got killed with a gun, and that is his defining moment. So, he shouldn't be using a gun.

Cap...cap is a soldier first. Him using a gun is quite reasonable and logical, especially in a war.

However, not every superhero should use a gun. That'd just be boring.

[grolim]

That's arguably the same thing. I thought that was kind of lame, really.

I disagree. Killing someone involves an overt act to harm them. Not saving them means taking no action, letting them die as a result of, usually, their own actions. Karma as it were. Inaction does not always = action, though the beliefs on that can get a bit fuzzy.



The difference is that in Batman Begins, he saw that Ras was on a train headed for a specific place, gave someone else instructions to blow up the train tracks it would have to travel over on its way to that place, then he beat up Ras and made sure he was still on the train which was doomed to crash and explode, certainly killing all still aboard.

Then he said, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" and escaped himself, leaving mere instants for Ras to even realize he was even in danger before being killed horribly.

Saying Batman didn't kill Ras in Batman Begins is like saying the Joker didn't kill Rachel Dawes in Dark Knight... I mean, all he did was tie her to a bomb and set the timer... he didn't kill her, he just engineered a situation where her life was in serious peril and then didn't save her.
I don't see it that way. He gave instructions to blowup the tracks as a LAST resort to stop the train from entering Wayne tower and taking out the whole city. Then he went to get on the train to try and stop them there. The way I saw it was his plan was to defeat them on the train and stop the train before it even got to where Gorden dropped the tracks. Gordon was his backup plan not the plan. But, iirc, Ras is the one the broke the train where batman couldn't stop it. Batman did NOT beat up Ras and make sure he was on the train that was doomed. He beat up Ras to stop him and try to stop the train, the best I recall it was Ras that doomed the train but preventing Batman from being able to stop it. If all he wanted was to destroy the train and kill those on board he wouldn't have needed Gordon. He would have just driven the batmobile himself to the right spot and blew up the support just before the train got there and with too little time for Ras and his men to escape. His plan was to defeat, capture, stop them. Blowing up the tracks was a failsafe.

[Devonix]

Oh, that's nothing. He recently killed apocalypse with a god-killing bullet he kept from when it was fired backward through time.

Those of you making the :smallfurious: face...you are correct. It was terrible. Guns can be done good or bad, like everything else. Batman...it makes sense. His parents got killed with a gun, and that is his defining moment. So, he shouldn't be using a gun.

Cap...cap is a soldier first. Him using a gun is quite reasonable and logical, especially in a war.

However, not every superhero should use a gun. That'd just be boring.


I am sorry but I have to completely disagree with the Batman part of your statment. Contraty to how he's often thought of Batman does not hate guns, he respects them and their use but disagrees with using them in personal situations. If he hated guns completely then he would not have machine guns or rockets or any other projectile weponry in his vehichles.

But mainly this boils down to the situation and the meaning of the story in Final Crisis. He killed Darkseid with a gun yes. There was also one very telling statement batman made to Darkseid before he shot him

"I made a very solemn vow about firearms. But for you I'm making a once in a lifetime exception. A gun and a bullet Darkdeid. It was your idea."

Joe Chill shot Bruce's parents in that alley all those years ago but Darksied is the god of evil He is in every evil act and so Darkseid shot Bruce's parents down in that alley.

Here at the end of the Fourth world it all comes back and Batman finnaly avenges himself against his parents killer by slaying the god of Evil. "

A bullet and a gun It was your idea"

Final crisis was the conclusion of the Fourth World. The war of gods was over and Evil won. that's what led to the chaos in the universe and the triumph of Evil that was happening, but we also knew that something very special had to happen to usher in the Fifth World.

The Fourth World was that of the Newgods with personifications of Abstracts walking the stars Such as Orion being the god of Heroic Struggle and its why his death set the heroes back so far. starting off the whole story.

When Batman killed Darkseid he ushered in the Fifth World the world of Mankind as their own gods and in control of their own destinies such as the birth of the Forever people.

[Devonix]

Also when you get down to it the New gods are ideas not people or aliens so its not quite the same thing as shooting a person.

[Jerthanis]

I don't see it that way. He gave instructions to blowup the tracks as a LAST resort to stop the train from entering Wayne tower and taking out the whole city. Then he went to get on the train to try and stop them there. The way I saw it was his plan was to defeat them on the train and stop the train before it even got to where Gorden dropped the tracks. Gordon was his backup plan not the plan. But, iirc, Ras is the one the broke the train where batman couldn't stop it. Batman did NOT beat up Ras and make sure he was on the train that was doomed. He beat up Ras to stop him and try to stop the train, the best I recall it was Ras that doomed the train but preventing Batman from being able to stop it. If all he wanted was to destroy the train and kill those on board he wouldn't have needed Gordon. He would have just driven the batmobile himself to the right spot and blew up the support just before the train got there and with too little time for Ras and his men to escape. His plan was to defeat, capture, stop them. Blowing up the tracks was a failsafe.


See, but he didn't say, "Hey Ras, I've already stopped your plan. Get off the train and we'll talk.", he jumped on, started fighting, and Ras was doomed by the outcome of that fight. Whether murdering Ras was his backup plan or his original plan, it was what actually happened. After his backup plan had succeeded in stopping the evil plot, he then had the option to escape the train with Ras' life intact and chose not to. "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" implied that Batman had the ability to save him from the lethal peril Ras was in... the lethal peril that was engineered by Batman himself... and chose not to.

That means Ras' death was his responsibility.

I won't deny that there are mitigating circumstances, such as rescuing the entire city in the process, and that it wasn't as bad as murder can come, but it was pretty definitively murder.

[riccaru]

Green Lantern has stated that he can split an atom easily. For most heroes, a gun would be a downgrade really. The Flash can punch people so hard they vaporize, Superman could break someone's neck by looking at them wrong. Martian Manhunter can make them kill themselves with a thought. Wonder Woman could probably use a gun, but there's a big difference thematically between a gun and The Lasso of Truth.

There are a few heroes who also use guns exclusively. That one blind lady with the bleeding hole on her shirt uses guns with no triggers which never run out of ammo. The Punisher uses a multitude of mundane weapons.

In Return of Superman, the big guy uses two big ol' laser guns set to kill, with a harness and a brand new black outfit.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Guns can be used by superheroes. They just have to be used right.

That said, shooting shouldn't be the first resort. Kind of like the police calling in a sniper squad.

[Traab]

Superman could break someone's neck by looking at them wrong.

This makes me feel the need to post this link. World of cardboard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwU0QkcrNVQ)

[Sipex]

...

Deadpool uses guns and has superpowers.


Mind, his powers aren't really the weaponised type from what I understand (Can't die, breaking the 4th wall) but there you have it.

[Fjolnir]

To be fair, Deadpool used guns extensively BEFORE he got superpowers as well...

[Erts]

Depends on the hero. Batman for instance, no, never. Other guys like Frank Castle, I don't see why not.

Really, the Golden Age wouldn't really see these types of things, but with the Silver Age and heroes getting more gritty I don't see why not. I mean Iron Man is (based on what I've seen) a (borderline) alcoholic. Does that sound like something a superhero should be? I mean, if you can't picture a hero running around with guns, can you picture them with a scotch in one hand?


WHAT?!?!?

Well, there was also a story where he turned into a baby during the Golden Age so take from that what you will. I guess I'm just thinking the modern depiction in films and such.

All right, I know this was posted a while ago, but still I feel the need to correct this...
(Warning, brief comic book history rant ahead.)
You are confusing your ages.The Golden Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_comics) had stories where Batman shot and killed people, or Captain America punching Hitler in the face, while the Silver Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_age_of_comics) was known for NOT being gritty and having stories where the main characters would turn into babies, or stuff like this. (http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=29&Itemid=46&limitstart=1) (Note, for some hilarious examples of Silver Age Silliness, read the rest of the comics.) This was a result of the Comics Code Authority, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority) which prevented more modern story lines from being presented.
As for Stark being an alcoholic, that took place in the Bronze Age, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_of_comics) towards the end of the 1970s in a storyline called: "Demon In a Bottle." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_in_a_Bottle) It is a myth that the Silver Age maintained it's campiness up until Crisis on Infinite Earths, Year One, and Watchmen. Comics had gradually become more mature up until that point.

[kpenguin]

I'll note that to characterize the Silver Age as just being an age of camp and whimsy would be a mistake. The Silver Age was also the birth of strong characterization based superhero comics, especially when ol' Smiling Stan was involved. You've got the Fantastic Four, a family of flawed supers who are as disfunctional and bickering as any other. You've got the Hulk, a savage and destruvtive yet ultimately misunderstood monster, along with his alter ego Bruce Banner, a meek man struggling to contain the monster within. You've got Iron Man, a character created specifically to be everything the average young comic book reader of the age would dislike: a military contractor, rich, old, a representation of the Man.

And I don't think I need to begin on Peter Parker.

Heck, look at Captain America. While Golden Age Cap was mostly a fun romp, punching Nazis, Silver Age Captain America was a man out of time, dealing with a world that's changed in both body and soul.

[thubby]

seeing as how most tech heroes use missiles, bombs, and lasers, i dont see why not.

the trick is making the use of a traditional weapon fantastic. the punisher isnt super but he stands out for his shear brutality. deadpool is a goofball with crazy acrobatics who just happens to use guns (ok, and swords).

[Avilan the Grey]

Gentlemen, Ladies, Undead Beings From Beyond the Grave...

I give you...

The Phantom.

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2009/04/new-phantom-costume3.jpg
And yes I know this is the purple costume


And yes, in Sweden he is very popular. A lot of people say it's because when the comics first started being printed in color here, a mistake made them print his suit as dark blue instead of the purple it was supposed to be. Since people hated the purple costume when they corrected it, he will forever have a blue costume in his Swedish magazine.

(He is popular enough that just like Donald Duck in parts of Europe, he has local writers; a good 50% of the stories are written by Swedish writers nowadays).

[Ravens_cry]

Guns have a specific purpose, killing people. Since I do not believe a superhero should kill except under extremely rare circumstances and if they do they should be prepared to take the full legal consequences of such actions, no I do not believe a superhero should use guns. Hitting to wound is difficult because bullets can be unpredictable. You're not just putting a hole in someone, things can get weird and nasty things below (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm)the surface of the skin that the entry wound doesn't show, the bullet can ricochet in strange ways inside the body and even the best wounding shot that actually incapacitates is basically a "kill them slower" shot.

[Avilan the Grey]

The thing with the Phantom is that he is an extremely good shot (to make sure he DOESN't hit people) but he usually only uses them when confronting other armed people (poachers, gangsters, modern day pirates, dictators) plus that he uses the guns for intimidation if the mask and skull motif doesn't work, which is rare.

He is, after all a mix of 50% Tarzan and 50% Batman.

(In fact, I would actually like to see a crossover between him and Bats. Written well, it would be very fun).

[Senator Cybus]

Here's a weird tangent - what if you had a character who shot his enemies dead, but brought them back to life later on? Could he/she be considered a hero?

For example, what if D.C. came up with a vigilante who discovers the secret of Ra's al Ghul's lazarus pits - he merrily mows down villains with an AK-47 or some such, but pops them in the pit later on and resurrects them.

Hell, let's take that a step further - let's say our vigilante has trick bullets filled with fluid from the pit, that kill you, but release their contents after ten minutes, bringing you back to life.

If a character did that to his villains (or similar: there's plenty of other ways to bring people back in super-hero comics), could they still be considered a hero? Is killing still an immoral act if you have a guaranteed way to reverse it, or would it just be a legitimate delaying tactic?

Also, if a hero kills a villain he knows will come back from the dead anyway (Doomsday, Lobo, etc), does that count as murder? Not to get too Torchwood here, but if someone can't die, at least not permanently, can you really be said to have killed them? :smallconfused:

[Maxios]

I personally believe super heroes shouldn't use guns unless it's for a good reason (like the Punisher). But, the majority of superhero's powers are a lot better then guns (which is why you never see Superman or The Hulk walking around with a machine gun).
I have a collection of the earliest Batman stories, and in those, he used a gun. But IIRC, he only used the gun on a vampire and some sort of mutant.

[Traab]

I personally believe super heroes shouldn't use guns unless it's for a good reason (like the Punisher). But, the majority of superhero's powers are a lot better then guns (which is why you never see Superman or The Hulk walking around with a machine gun).
I have a collection of the earliest Batman stories, and in those, he used a gun. But IIRC, he only used the gun on a vampire and some sort of mutant.

I just had this mental image of the hulk or superman walking around with a hand full of bullets, flicking them at bad guys tot ake them down. :p

[snoopy13a]

Gentlemen, Ladies, Undead Beings From Beyond the Grave...

I give you...

The Phantom.



I liked the Phantom, I was very disappointed as a kid when the local newspaper dropped it from their comic page.

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't call the Phantom a superhero, but rather just a hero.

To me, that's the difference. Heroes like the Phantom and D. Tracy can use guns because they really don't have superpowers*. On the other hand, guns are somewhat mudane for those with superpowers.

* Obviously, Batman is a superhero without superpowers but he's the exception to every rule because he's... Batman :smallsmile:

[riccaru]

I liked the Phantom, I was very disappointed as a kid when the local newspaper dropped it from their comic page.

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't call the Phantom a superhero, but rather just a hero.

To me, that's the difference. Heroes like the Phantom and D. Tracy can use guns because they really don't have superpowers*. On the other hand, guns are somewhat mudane for those with superpowers.

* Obviously, Batman is a superhero without superpowers but he's the exception to every rule because he's... Batman :smallsmile:

Depends on the superpowers, really. Like I said, there's a girl whose superpower is her guns. Or someone like Dante from Devil May Cry. Sure, he's not a superhero, but he could be if he was put into the universe.

[Marnath]

Kinda related to the topic:
http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n539/marnath1/1739023-demotivational_posters_batman_never_uses_guns_supe r.jpg

[Friv]

The thing is, most heroes shouldn't use guns more because they have better options than because guns are inherently evil. As has been noted, guns are pretty lethal. Police officers get them, but are only supposed to use them in extreme situations. You don't just unload a clip at someone who's running off with a purse.

I think, because of that, people whose superpowers make their guns better are more often supervillains than superheroes. Guns are seen as lethal, and thus people who are using them as their first line of approach are people who are lethal, and in the four-color comics people who resort to lethal force are usually the bad guys.

Besides, most superheroes can use some trick to incapacitate people more safely that firing at them, or have access to far more powerful innate blasts than a bullet which can also be used with more precision. But I don't think there's anything inherently non-heroic about guns.

(Also, as a quick quibble to an earlier example - generally speaking, it is something of a stretch to call Deadpool a super-hero.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

If we're willing to stretch the definition of superheroes a little, I think that Vash the Stampede, from the manga/anime series Trigun, certainly qualifies, and I don't see why not. He exhibits many hallmarks of a superhero, and wrestles with the issue of lethal violence.

[Devonix]

Kinda related to the topic:
http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n539/marnath1/1739023-demotivational_posters_batman_never_uses_guns_supe r.jpg

Batman's been using firearms since the golden age and all the way through to today. Sparringly yes and not a first choice for him but he will use them His big thing is not killing with them.

http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html

[Weimann]

Here's a link to an Extra Credits episode I think is relevant to the discussion (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3261-The-Myth-of-the-Gun).

[Ricky S]

I think not because in traditional superhero fiction they are always extremely good and therefore never kill their enemies but simply put them in prison each time so they always break out and cause more mischief.

When the lines are more blurred though about the morals of the hero in question then it becomes more appropriate. In Hellsing they use guns to kill undead which is blameless. In Gunslinger girl they use guns, granted they are proffessional assassins but they are killing bad people for a good cause.

I often think that it would be a whole lot easier simply to use a gun than mess around with super powers/equipment. Iron man (from the film) would be far better off using a gun than those flight stabilisers on his hands. Batman would have far less trouble with the joker if instead of fighting him he just shot him. Spiderman could handle his enemies way more easily if he just shot him. Octoman (or whatever he is called) didnt even wear any armour. 1 bullet and he stops being a threat.

Then there is the whole other side of the enjoyment/fiction perspective. If you could just kill your enemies so easily there would be no story and people want to see fantastical things. So killing someone with a gun wouldnt cut it.