The Four Color Media Monitor: Of course it's possible DC could publish a story where Batman condones gun control

That's assuming they haven't done so already in the past decade, but as Green Arrow #89 from the mid-90s proves, they already did over 2 decades ago. Leftist Polygon's written about a panel at the NYCC where an alleged fan brought up a question whether they'll do something to benefit victims of the Las Vegas bloodbath:

Did DC Comics have any plans to do an anthology to benefit victims of the Las Vegas mass shooting on Oct. 1, as the company did after the Pulse Nightclub mass shooting; or to use Batman to make direct commentary on gun control?

The short answer was no. No plans were presently in the works, but, if that was a book they truly cared about, panelists urged those in attendance to make sure DC Comics was aware of that interest. The moderator noted that Love is Love, a collaborative anthology between DC Comics and IDW Publishing whose proceeds benefited victims, survivors and the families of victims of the Pulse mass shooting, was an effort spearheaded by Marc Andreyko, an Eisner Award-winning queer comics creator.

But Scott Snyder, the clearest architect of DC’s Gotham City setting of the past six years, had a longer answer.

“It’s really up to DC,” he said about the subject of a benefit book. “All of us are always pretty active in trying to give support in that regard.”

“It’s hard with a character like Batman,” he added, moving on to the subject of directly addressing the topic of gun control in a Batman story. “I think he ... it gets politicized in ways that become uncomfortable. He’s a character who genuinely hates guns and doesn’t use guns.

Isn't that funny coming from somebody representing a company that has made political statements before - even if they were cunningly disguised as metaphors - nearly all of a leftist variety. And it won't shock me at all if Snyder himself already conceived at least a few liberal metaphors of his own in the pages of the DC books he's written. Obviously, he's never been critical of some of their worst political allegories like Identity Crisis, all because he doesn't want to displease the overlords who're paying him to write their books. Why is it supposedly uncomfy for a Batbook to focus on gun control, but not uncomfy when a screed like Identity Crisis wallows in nasty misogyny and leftist metaphors for 9-11? The same could even be asked about products like Batman: War Games and the Nightwing story with Tarantula from 2004. They've never explained their reasoning behind making such stunningly repellent books, and I don't expect them to admit they screwed up in the future either.

And with or without audience demand, the chances DC will advocate gun control like they did in the past with Green Arrow are unfortunately very likely. If they could publish metaphors for Ferguson and villify American workers as violent to immigrants, illegal or not, then it's clear they have no qualms with railing against guns.

Labels: Batman, conventions, dc comics, msm propaganda, politics, violence

The graphic novel Batman: Seduction of the Gun (cover date 1993), written by John Ostrander, was a leftist anti-gun diatribe.

Posted by Anonymous | 11:17 AM

You have to understand the tremendous differences between American and Israeli gun culture. In Israel, a large majority of the population go through military service. Muslims and some Orthodox Jews are exempt, but for most people going to the army is a normal stage of life, like graduating high school. They know how to use and care for a gun, and are trained to use them responsibly. As well, the major threats to the domestic population have come over the years from terrorism and military aggression from outside the country’s borders. There have been some terrible incidents of domestic terrorism but they are particularly shocking because they are rare.

In the U S, most gun owners don’t get that kind of training, and it is easier and faster to get an automatic weapon than it is to get a driving license. There have been high-profile and soul-searing incidents of foreign and foreign-inspired terrorism, but the most frequent kinds of deadly attacks on civilian populations in recent years come from local crazies with guns. Members of libertarian militias carry heavier fire-power than your average police officer.

In a previous post, you asked why no-one was talking about a hotel-owner’s responsibility to search the baggage of their guests. In Israel, you accept as normal that your bags are going to be checked before you go into the stores or the theatres. In America, the idea that a hotel owner would check your luggage is offensive to your sense of personal freedom and liberty, much more so than any gun control proposals.

Israel is a small country, the U S a relatively large one. The U S has a real urban-rural divide. In rural areas of America, the local police can be a half hour away and hunting is normal recreation; having a gun isn’t unusual. In cities, the people who have heavy weapons are organized crime and gangbangers, and you don’t want to make it easy for them to get them.

That is why the majority of the population in the U S favor at least some kind of gun control; it doesn’t make sense that in the name of the second amendment people with mental health problems should be able to assemble arsenals of semi-automatic weapons, any more than a blind guy with frequent seizures should have a right to drive a car. If the guy in Las Vegas had had a rifle instead of a bumped-up semi, he would have killed a lot less people. Most Americans agree with guys like Dan Slott on this one.

Posted by Anonymous | 7:47 AM

It is not faster and easier to get an automatic weapon than it is to get a driving license. To legally buy a firearm, you have to show ID, either a valid driver's license or comparable state-issued ID card. It is not one thing as opposed to another.

And the law does not allow people with mental health problems to assemble arsenals. The 1968 Gun Control Act (a federal law, that applies to all 50 states) prohibits the sale of firearms to convicted felons, minors, fugitives, dishonorably discharged military veterans, people who have been diagnosed as dangerously mentally ill, and people who are legally insane or incompetent.

Mass shootongs in the US are actually (and thankfully) rare, but when they do happen, they get a lot of publicity.

Most mass shootings in the past 50 years took place in designated gun-free zones. Most of the shooters were liberal Democrats.

Violent crime actually decreased in the US in the 1990s and early 2000s, at the same time that gun ownership increased. Crime may have increased somewhat in the past eight years, mainly because of the Democrats' efforts to "end mass incarceration." That is, they release dangerous criminals from prison, then blame crime on the NRA.

There is an urban-rural divide in the US. In rural areas (and in working class metropolitan areas), people work, obey laws, and pay taxes. In big cities, able-bodied young adults refuse to work, they commit crimes, and they demand that others pay taxes to support them.

Then the SJWs blame the crime in Detroit and Chicago on lack of gun control in Arizona and Texas.

Posted by Anonymous | 12:26 PM

I would have no objection to hotel staff inspecting my luggage. It is not the same thing as police kicking in my door and ransacking my house. I do not have the same expectation of privacy on someone else's property that I would have in my own home.

And the amount of equipment that the Las Vegas shooter brought with him was obviously suspicious. As was his installing surveillance cameras in the hall outside the room.

This horrible tragedy could have been prevented by a little common sense and a few reasonable precautions.

Posted by Anonymous | 3:00 PM