Batman's gun policy

[The Laughing Fish]

As we all know, despite Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing" during the rooftop fight scene, the end of the movie has Catwoman shooting Bane to death in order to save Batman, and Batman himself shooting at Talia's truck to save the town. What always made a huge impression on me was Catwoman telling Batman as soon as she rescued him: "About the whole no guns thing...(shakes her head)...I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do".

So, I suppose Nolan was trying to convey the message that guns are the answer to stop crime and disorder after all? I don't think even he knows, because according to TDK Screenplays Book, he actually admitted having no idea that Batman doesn't normally carry guns OR kill people:

I didn't know Batman didn't kill people when I signed on for the project. It was David [Goyer] who broke that news. And I was like, 'How do you make that work?' I said to the MPAA on The Dark Knight: 'Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a contemporary action film where the protagonist doesn't carry a gun? Doesn't kill people?' But I think that's an important part of why he's a mythic figure, rather than just a conventional action protagonist. It's actually a very important reason why I've stayed interested for so long in his story, because you have to deal with somebody wrestling that it seems important to wrestle with. So there is great stock placed in life in the way there is in real life.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PR9#v=onepage&q=I%20didn't%20know%20Batman%20didn't%20kill%20people&f=false

Yet despite all of this, Nolan decided to include these moral policies into his movies, but didn't bother to address any of them when Batman decides to break them. How typical. And people still regard him as a "cerebral" director. 

It's amazing how this guy gets away with a lot of things that other directors would've gotten castrated over. I guarantee you, if it was somebody else introduced a moral code and then have their character break it without exploring the consequences over it, or come to terms that he must break it to rescue others, that director would've been condemned by the critics for poor writing.

[Edd Grayson]

While I don't think Nolan's films are unwatchable, I don't understand either why he's treated like some sort of infallible figure in filmmaking.

[Dagenspear]

As we all know, despite Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing" during the rooftop fight scene, the end of the movie has Catwoman shooting Bane to death in order to save Batman, and Batman himself shooting at Talia's truck to save the town. What always made a huge impression on me was Catwoman telling Batman as soon as she rescued him: "About the whole no guns thing...(shakes her head)...I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do".

So, I suppose Nolan was trying to convey the message that guns are the answer to stop crime and disorder after all? I don't think even he knows, because according to TDK Screenplays Book, he actually admitted having no idea that Batman doesn't normally carry guns OR kill people:

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PR9#v=onepage&q=I%20didn't%20know%20Batman%20didn't%20kill%20people&f=false

Yet despite all of this, Nolan decided to include these moral policies into his movies, but didn't bother to address any of them when Batman decides to break them. How typical. And people still regard him as a "cerebral" director. 

It's amazing how this guy gets away with a lot of things that other directors would've gotten castrated over. I guarantee you, if it was somebody else introduced a moral code and then have their character break it without exploring the consequences over it, or come to terms that he must break it to rescue others, that director would've been condemned by the critics for poor writing.

The films never seemed to take a stance against guns directly. Even the line you quote says, "No guns, no killing." Which seems to give the idea not to kill with guns. Not not to use guns at all. In every version Bruce is a supporter of the police and a friend to Commissioner Gordon, who uses guns. But there are consequences to him breaking the rule. But the rule in the movies wasn't about the consequences.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Travesty]

They took a stance against guns. Remember in BB, when he showed Rachel that he was going to kill Joe Chill with a gun, and she kept slapping him, and told him how disappointed his father would be, and then he threw it in the river and ran off to become Batman?

[Dagenspear]

They took a stance against guns. Remember in BB, when he showed Rachel that he was going to kill Joe Chill with a gun, and she kept slapping him, and told him how disappointed his father would be, and then he threw it in the river and ran off to become Batman?

That seemed more about that he was going to kill him to me. The throwing it in the river just seemed like a character based thing to me as well.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[thecolorsblend]

They took a stance against guns. Remember in BB, when he showed Rachel that he was going to kill Joe Chill with a gun, and she kept slapping him, and told him how disappointed his father would be, and then he threw it in the river and ran off to become Batman?

That seemed more about that he was going to kill him to me. The throwing it in the river just seemed like a character based thing to me as well.

The other thing is Bruce didn't personally design the Batmobile or Batcopter. Yes, the movie uses other names for them but I won't go along with that. Anyway, they were designed for military purposes. It's totally reasonable to think they'd have guns attached to them.

And there are circumstances (such as blowing up a pile of rocks in TDKRises) where that kind of artillery might be needed.

Guns and explosives are tools. The issue isn't the tools; it's how they're used.

That being said, Batman kills people in Nolan's trilogy. There's no getting around it.

[The Laughing Fish]

The other thing is Bruce didn't personally design the Batmobile or Batcopter. Yes, the movie uses other names for them but I won't go along with that. Anyway, they were designed for military purposes. It's totally reasonable to think they'd have guns attached to them.

And there are circumstances (such as blowing up a pile of rocks in TDKRises) where that kind of artillery might be needed.

Guns and explosives are tools. The issue isn't the tools; it's how they're used.

That being said, Batman kills people in Nolan's trilogy. There's no getting around it.

The fact that he does kill makes it puzzling why he'd be so adamant against using guns in the first place. Yeah, he may not aim and fire his guns at people every time he drives a vehicle, but you'd think he'd understand by now that lethal force is inevitable sometimes. And in such moments, a gun - as Selina was implying - is certainly a valuable tool to save lives.

Which once again, it only adds to many contradictory things that this Batman says in this series. It was an unnecessary thing to say.

[Dagenspear]

The fact that he does kill makes it puzzling why he'd be so adamant against using guns in the first place. Yeah, he may not aim and fire his guns at people every time he drives a vehicle, but you'd think he'd understand by now that lethal force is inevitable sometimes. And in such moments, a gun - as Selina was implying - is certainly a valuable tool to save lives.

Which once again, it only adds to many contradictory things that this Batman says in this series. It was an unnecessary thing to say.

It's not contradictory. He doesn't use guns to kill someone the one time that he does kill someone, and even that was accidental. His stance against using guns to kill can't be contradictory because he's never used them to kill. Basically you want him to realize that he should kill because he killed one person accidentally while saving the kid of his friend from being murdered, which doesn't fit. Killing someone accidentally doesn't automatically mean you'll think killing is necessary.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[DocLathropBrown]

Which once again, it only adds to many contradictory things that this Batman says in this series. It was an unnecessary thing to say.

It's not contradictory. He doesn't use guns to kill someone the one time that he does kill someone, and even that was accidental. His stance against using guns to kill can't be contradictory because he's never used them to kill. Basically you want him to realize that he should kill because he killed one person accidentally while saving the kid of his friend from being murdered, which doesn't fit. Killing someone accidentally doesn't automatically mean you'll think killing is necessary.
[/quote]

True, but he DOES use the guns on The Bat to flat-out blow away the driver of the truck at the end. No way that was an accident.

[Dagenspear]

True, but he DOES use the guns on The Bat to flat-out blow away the driver of the truck at the end. No way that was an accident.

It was actually. Bruce was trying to redirect the truck to get it to go where the fusion bomb could contained. Lucius says that to Bruce.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!