FiveDCFANZINELogos

Gun-Toting With Chuck Dixon


Ray writes a letter to Chuck:

It strikes me as odd that, of all those people who were published in Legends of the Dark Knight #88's lettercol, those who complained the most about Batman's use of a gun apparently haven't ever read his early appearances in the late 30s and early 40s. Therein, it wasn't uncommon to find Batman with holsters attached to his utility belt, nor was it to see Batman using firearms to kill or threaten his foes.

Of course, since then, an increasing gun-control mentality has set in and taken command of the editorial vision behind the character. In Year Two, Bruce Wayne is shown practicing in the Batcave with firearms and is quite the marksman, though his only use of guns when fighting is to hurl them as bulky projectiles.

Then that piece of anti-gun propaganda that is better known as Seduction of the Gun came out several years afterwards, in which it was revealed the severe trauma the bullets fired at Bruce's parents caused before they finally died.

Zero Hour brought with it some new revision, and Bruce now not only never used firearms against criminals, but neither for practice. He passed his FBI exams with flying colors, except for the firearms training. Several times as he recalled that fateful evening after the cinema he seemed overly willing to ascribe his parents' deaths to a gun, and not to the criminal wielding it (whose identity was wiped from this brave new continuity, thus leaving Batman with yet more unfinished business).

It should appear obvious to anyone reading this that I'd prefer it if Batman would stop blaming guns and focus rather on those few-by-comparison who misuse them. Of course, such will never be the case so long as Denny O'Neil dictates Wayne's character and beliefs.

I'll pipe down in a moment, and allow all of those who prefer fist-fighting and boomerang-throwing vigilantes to the firearm-wielding ones to continue enjoying their Batman without interruption, but I hope they'd not insult my intelligence further by attributing Batman's appeal to any "realistic" elements. He may very well be a normal human who's trained himself to near perfection, but that still doesn't suspend my disbelief very long when I continually see him enter into gunfights where bullets are flying every which way, and see him emerge alive, much less relatively unscathed, with every criminal either unconscious or dead from each others' hands.

And what's with this Eastern martial arts fetish? Only in comics do the ninjas wipe out whole squadrons of soldiers, gangs of thugs, or cadres of high-priced hitmen. It was nice to see Garth Ennis recently take the opposite stance in Hitman by showing that bullets are much more effective than throwing stars and swords. It would be just as pleasant to see more "reality" played out in the more serious-minded titles.

One last note: to all those who suffered near-coronaries when they saw their beloved Batman actually wielding and using a firearm to kill a biological monster who threatened to introduce a "contagion" to fair Gotham, I'll set their extreme unsettlement at ease by reminding them that, except where otherwise indicated, it's a generally held rule that LOTDK stories don't necessarily reside firmly in continuity; that's why they're called legends. The word means "an unverified popular story." Except for those issues that occur in current continuity, I'd say that it's questionable at best to declare as canonical any of those LOTDK issues that occurred in Batman's past or future.

So rest easy, friends: this Batman's still in the pockets of Handgun Control. A pity that the DC readers are all the worse for it.


Chuck writes back to Ray:

You went on a bit of a rant about how the subject of guns as portrayed in the Batman comics. You mentioned "Seduction of the Gun," a project I myself found biased and loathsome, and Batman's attitude toward guns in general.

You seem disparaging of Bruce Wayne's hatred of firearms based on the trauma of seeing his parents murdered as a young boy. His feelings seem perfectly justified to me. As I've stated in more than one story (most prominently in "Punisher/Batman."); the Batman persona is the reaction of a child to a terrible event. That's why Bruce Wayne fulfilled a child's promise to his parents to fight crime by dressing up as a giant bat. His promise to not use a gun is part of his code, his allure, his whatever. I quibble with your statement that he used a gun a lot in stories of the 30's and 40's. Maybe a half dozen stories featured Batman with a .45 in his fist. And these were very early stories shortly after his creation and long before Robin showed up. Batman wouldn't be the very special character he is if he just toted a gun and blew everyone out of their socks. I doubt he's even be in circulation. The boomerangs and the cave and the cars and all the gadgets my seem hokey but they're part of the charm. They're also part of the challenge to creators to make it all work and suspend your disbelief.

And nowhere in the Batman mythos can I find it stated that Bruce became an FBI agent without passing the firearms course. That's not possible. He did learn to use firearms. He continued his tutelage in firearms with the master assassin Henri DuCard learning to use a variety of long range arms and handguns. He mastered their use but still hates them and rejects them for his own use. I address this in an upcoming Detective Comics arc featuring Deathstroke and Gunhawk.

Now, on to the greater issue and the one that really ticked me off. I am not the tool of some conspiracy run by Handgun Control Inc. or any other organization out to suspend my second amendment rights. I am a longtime member of the National Rifle Association and practically raised to be a gun enthusiast. Hell, I won't even patronize Hechinger's Home Centers because they contribute to Anti-Gun lobbies (funny that doesn't stop them from selling gun cabinets at their stores.). My dad is a retired gunsmith and taught me everything I know about gun with the emphasis on responsibility and gun safety. I accompanied him to lots of Cub Scout and Boy Scout meetings where he spoke and demonstrated safety with firearms. He isn't a lobbyist or an employee of a gun manufacturer. He was just a dad who wanted to share his knowledge and interests.

I own guns. I range shoot, I used to hunt when I had leisure time, and I own some guns that have since been "banned" for sale in this country. And I don't want anyone taking them away from me or the tens of millions of responsible gun owners in America. So my childhood was different from Bruce Wayne's. But that doesn't invalidate his feelings and beliefs. And when I write him he doesn't speak for me. He speaks for Batman and stays inside that character. The guy hates guns and criminals. And it's my job to make that hatred as compelling and believable as possible and my own beliefs be damned.

But one thing you will not see in any of my stories is a character blaming the gun over the individual. For a prime example look at my recent two-parter in Robin concerning guns in public schools. You won't see some "Gun grabber" philosophy espoused there. While armed students attending classes is a reality in our world it is not blamed on gun retailers or manufacturers or lax gun control laws. I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this participants in the story. Even Batman delivers this message at the story's end. Tim Drake's high school buddy dies because he accepted the risks entailed with bringing a gun to school. You shoot at folks with guns and they might shoot back. That's a fact of life anyone can agree on no matter where they come down on the gun issue.

So, lighten up Ray. While I sympathize with your notion that the media is stacked against private gun ownership, no one at DC Comics marches to a single drumbeat unless it's on the subject of creating quality comics.


Ray writes a few more points for the article:

Batman 0, page 7: "Some things, here in the cave at least, have changed. His forensic equipment lies smashed and swept aside, replaced by a shooting gallery. And whether the targets were designed for bat-blades or bullets, the very notion of such a gallery strikes him as a perversion of every ideal he has sought to honor and hone...he is reminded, in a red haze, of the gun. The hated, shattering gun..."

Batman had a shooting gallery during Year 2, but that element seems to have been conveniently swept aside in favor of a more Handgun Control stance. Otherwise why would Batman have gotten offended at the presence of a bat-blade shooting gallery in a cave where a prior, more conventional one already existed?

Shadow of the Bat 0, p.11: "Age 20, he scored perfect on every FBI test except for gun handling."

I never said he didn't pass it, only that "He passed his FBI exams with flying colors, except for the firearms training." Can someone qualify for FBI membership if they just barely pass on such an exam? It seems to me that Bruce's new obsession would have prevented him from ever pulling a trigger. In any case, you'd think that gun-handling would have a high priority in a covert intelligence-gathering organization; people who just barely pass wouldn't, I'd assume, be guaranteed a position in such esteemed ranks, just as a pre-med student shouldn't entertain thoughts of getting accepted to a medical school should he just waif his way through his courses and barely pass them.

In any case, Chuck, I've long known of your pro-gun stance, but your voice is still muffled out by those who hold tenure over you and outnumber you. I think it's safe to say that Dennis O'Neil, Doug Moench, and Alan Grant are all pro-Brady law, and I do think they've worked on the Bat-titles for far longer than you have, and have much more say over creative vision and in what direction the protagonist marches (in this case, invariably to the left).

Of course, your Robin 25 story arc didn't do much to reinforce my impression of you, since it seemed to give the impression that keeping a gun in a house where a teenager resides makes for a volatile mixture. In addition, I found the issue almost racist to an extent, if only because what it essentially boiled down to was this: a dumb white jock is given a gun by his dumb white father, but his father eventually is talked out of it by Tim Drake's pro-gun control father. The jock simply steals one of his father's other firearms to compensate for his deficiency, arrives at school, and is swiftly made Swiss cheese of by the black gangs (a common staple, I'm sure, at every suburban public high school (and why does Tim Drake, who lives in a mansion, even attend public school when much better education can be had in a private one?)).

The impression I got was that the white jock never had a chance against a similarly armed black gang member, as if somehow genetics were to blame. As a Hispanic, I've, on more than a few occasions, heard the "All Mexicans carry or use knives" stereotype, and while it is rather humorous as an outrageous generality, it is nevertheless insulting when others somehow think of it as a valid description of Hispanics in general. On the same token, I'd think that a black reader of the title would have been offended at the outcome of Robin 25, as the grinning, overconfident black gang members made quick work out of the cocky white jock. The outcome seemed so predetermined that it was really a disappointment to actually see my fears manifest, as not only did a stereotype play out, but there was no sudden, surprising twist to catch me off-guard. At the very least, such troublesome teenagers should long ago have been expelled or suspended from a school that receives so much taxpayer support (and I'm sure that the property tax rates on Mr. Drake's real estate are quite formidable). In South Texas at least, those students who are real discipline cases are forced to leave an environment in which students actually want to learn and are sent to alternative public schools whose sole purpose is to put up with those supposed pupils who'd rather bully other kids than develop job skills.


Article by Ray Ruenes and Chuck Dixon
All thoughts, statements, view, ideas, et cetera in this article are not necessarily those of any company or person related to the authors of this piece, and so the views made are only those of the respective author.
[Main Page][Email][Back to Features Contents]
DC FANZINE and related indicia copyright © 1997 DC FANZINE. DC FANZINE Logo TM and Copyright © 1997 DC FANZINE. All Rights Reserved. 1