Batman despises guns and does therefore not use them (vulcan cannons or machine gun implacements on his vehicles [especially in the movies] non-withstanding), he uses batarangs and all kinds of high-tech gadgets instead, all of which appear to be really expensive.

This aversion of firearms of course originated from the murder of his parents via handgun right in front of him when he was a young boy.

This leads to my question:

Has anyone ever noticed that Batman does not use guns and tried to figure out Batman's civilian identity (or actually succeded it doing so) by guessing it comes from a very deep psychological issue, i.e. most likely childhood trauma.

Even in crime infested Gotham City, there cannot be that many incredibly rich men with traumata involving gun violence most likely in their childhoods.

  • 4
    You assume people in Gotham know about the no gun rule. Plus Batman has plenty of history using guns – Broklynite Mar 11 '18 at 10:55
  • 2
    The question also implies that the vigilante has to be the one funding the gadgets, whereas other possibilities certainly exist, for instance a rich benefactor could be funding someone from a more modest background (in which case the rule about no guns might not come from the person with the money), or perhaps people believe Batman takes what he needs from the criminals of the city instead of using personal funds. – delinear Mar 12 '18 at 13:16
  • 1
    We also need to note that Batman's "No Guns" rule is recent in the stories - Before about 1961, he used .45 pistols regularly, though his intention always was to wound, not kill, if possible. Mind you, the first few times he killed criminals was by other means than gunshot. – Covertwalrus Apr 30 '18 at 23:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.