Poll: Should Captain America Carry a Gun?

[iSteve]

Sound off, iFanboys!

[esophagus]

Were the question "Should the new Captain America carry a gun?" I'd say yes. Maybe if it was handled right I would have been good with Steve Rogers carrying a gun, but he did fine without it, and I can't think of a way to make it normal for him to start using one again.

[jaflanagan]

Outside of Captain Afghanistan, I can't imagine a country it's more suited for.

[horatio616]

He should have a bigger gun, actually. Shit hits the fan sometimes.

[jon_samuelson]

You damn pinko commie Josh. Or perhaps it's your affinity for all things British that makes you hate America and Guns so...

[dave-accampo]

Had to go with "depends" for me.

I'm fine with Bucky in the current storyline. I think they're using the Captain America mythos, and still telling a character based story. Thus, the icon is malleable enough to work.

However, if Steve Rogers suddenly started carrying a gun, and it wasn't a reboot, it wouldn't work for me.

If, say, the Ultimate Steve Rogers carried a gun from the start, I probably would have been fine with it. Because he's a (roughly) new take on the character.

[esophagus]

Had to go with "depends" for me.

I'm fine with Bucky in the current storyline. I think they're using the Captain America mythos, and still telling a character based story. Thus, the icon is malleable enough to work.

However, if Steve Rogers suddenly started carrying a gun, and it wasn't a reboot, it wouldn't work for me.

If, say, the Ultimate Steve Rogers carried a gun from the start, I probably would have been fine with it. Because he's a (roughly) new take on the character.Definitely agree.

[esophagus]

Outside of Captain Afghanistan, I can't imagine a country it's more suited for.To me he stands for more of what America should be then what America is. In the earlier issues of Brubaker's run they talked about how Steve was the nicest guy around, even after what he went through in the war. They said something along the lines of "He killed people because it was kill or be killed". It's just not something Steve would do now. Still. Makes sense for Bucky. The same way it probably would have made sense had they given Steve a gun since he was unfrozen.

[jaflanagan]

It's possible I was being a bit flippant.

[esophagus]

It's possible I was being a bit flippant.Umm... Me to? :rolleyes:

[conorkilpatrick]

It's possible I was being a bit flippant.

Doesn't mean you were wrong, though.

[jaflanagan]

Doesn't mean you were wrong, though.

Oh I don't think I was. I didn't say whether I thought that was a good or bad thing. So hard to not be political...

[jon_samuelson]

For the record I was joking about the hating America thing. But not the pinko commie thing! We need us a good Red Scare in here. I'd turn you all over for Senate hearings in a heartbeat!

[tad]

They said something along the lines of "He killed people because it was kill or be killed".

How is that different from Hydra, AIM or Ron Life Model Decoys trying to kill him? Cap used a gun from day one in the comics. He didn't stop using a gun for creative reasons or to make a statement. He stopped because of the Comics Code. If Steve Rogers had a gun in the early Avengers, he'd probably use it to shoot guns out of people's hands or shoot sleep darts. Hell, he hung with a guy who shot arrows at people.

I think Brubaker has brought more reality and danger to the comic. It's harder to pull off the dodging bullets stuff.

[dave-accampo]

Cap used a gun from day one in the comics. He didn't stop using a gun for creative reasons or to make a statement. He stopped because of the Comics Code.

While all of this is true, Tad, my personal answer to the poll is that for whatever the reason, the Steve Rogers *I* grew up with didn't shoot people, and so it would be weird to me if he suddenly picked up a gun.

Now maybe Brubaker could pull it off. But it couldn't just be slipped in there without notice. So it would have to be worked into a story. And, in the hands of a lesser writer, it would inevitably become some sensationalist 90's-style storyline where Cap rejects his previously non-lethal ways because he realizes that some people "just need killin'."

And that wouldn't work for me.

However, a full-on reboot wouldn't bother me. So, I can accept the icon with a gun, I can accept the character with a gun, but I can't accept MY version of the character, the one in the continuity *I'm* used to, picking up a gun because it would involve a storyline that I doubt I would enjoy.

That's not to say a writer couldn't prove me wrong, though. I just can't imagine it.

Then again, I probably would have said the same thing about a story that brings Bucky back to life. ;)

Edited to add: And Brubaker's version of Bucky-Cap works for me because it sidelines that shift of character by basically putting a new character in the role. And THAT works for me just fine.

[esophagus]

How is that different from Hydra, AIM or Ron Life Model Decoys trying to kill him? Cap used a gun from day one in the comics. He didn't stop using a gun for creative reasons or to make a statement. He stopped because of the Comics Code. If Steve Rogers had a gun in the early Avengers, he'd probably use it to shoot guns out of people's hands or shoot sleep darts. Hell, he hung with a guy who shot arrows at people.

I think Brubaker has brought more reality and danger to the comic. It's harder to pull off the dodging bullets stuff.He may not have stopped for creative reasons, but now there's creative reasons he doesn't. As I said before, had Steve never stopped using the gun, I wouldn't have a problem, but now they have a good reason for him not to be using one, so it seems strange to ditch that.

[xyzzy]

Cap's a soldier. I don't see any reason why he'd have a problem with guns. Now, maybe he can use his shield more effectively with both hands free and it operates both offensively and defensively, so he doesn't need a gun. I can see that. But there's nothing inconsistent about him having one, either.

[spock-tm]

I don't really see how carrying a gun (in the hand of a professional, aka Bucky) is much different than thwacking someone with a Super Strength sized 1 punch K.O. or hurtling a massive chunk of Vibrinanum (is it in the comics?) metal at mad speeds with the Super Strength weight behind the throw.

Both have the possibility to kill quite easily, both require amazing amounts of restraints in order to not kill and both are quite effective.

The only difference really is that Bucky doesn't really have a problem killing, he really is a soldier, has been ever since WW2, following a chain of command is normal to him, and although he doesn't have to report to anyone (other than say the White House? S.H.I.E.L.D. if he really messes up?), I'm sure he would still do anything Nick Fury would tell him to do in a heart beat; as for Steve, who lets face it, kinda worked above the law and for his 'own' agenda, being the safety/ security of Americans and their civil liberties/ freedoms.... which he let no-one tell him what was and wasn't right....


So.... I'd say the bad guys are probably a little more safer with Bucky around, there is a MUCH higher chance of NOT developing or receiving severe Brain/ Internal Organ Injuries... although I bet that metal arm could cause some damage ;)

[euchre0]

If Steve Rogers had started carrying a gun it would have been fine. However, part of the coolness of of his character is that he doesn't need one. His shield, in his hands, was as effective as a gun. Sure he's a soldier, so if he needed a gun, I'd be fine with it.

What I mean is, it's cool that he didn't need a gun, but makes sense that Bucky would use one.

Spider-man or Wolverine could start carrying a gun, but it's more interesting that they have their own way of fighting and don't use a gun.

[the-sword-is-drawn]

I personally am kind of against it. I kno that there can be many justfications for it, but as I see it Steve Rogers never needed it - why should the replacement.

Plus, with a gun, well he feels more like Union Jack to me.

[euchre0]

Up until he put on the Cap suit, Bucky has carried a gun as the Winter Soldier. Not only has he carried a gun, but it has been an asset to him, so why would he forsake it as soon as he put on a new uniform? Bucky seems like an amalgam of Steve Rogers and Nick Fury, and Nick Fury always had a gun.

[hbd]

I'm fine with it. It's not like Steve was Batman, someone who absolutely hates guns and everything they stand for. He used them when he needed to, it's just that he rarely needed to. And for Bucky, the gun totally fits. A sniper gun would fit even better :p , but Cap needs to be on the front line, not hanging back under cover.

[esophagus]

Steve Rogers never needed it
You're forgetting this big period called the war. It was kill or be killed.

It's also important to note that it's been fairly explicitly said that Bucky won't be using this gun to kill people. He'll be using it like Batman used Batarangs, Superman used Heat Vision, and Steve himself used his shield.

[mikegraham6]

You're forgetting this big period called the war. It was kill or be killed.

It's also important to note that it's been fairly explicitly said that Bucky won't be using this gun to kill people. He'll be using it like Batman used Batarangs, Superman used Heat Vision, and Steve himself used his shield.
ya guys, doesn't everyone know that a gun is merely a tool? it's a matter of how they're used that's important not that it could POSSIBLY be used to kill people!
Sarcasm:rolleyes:

what horseshit, if a superhero uses a gun, he ceases to be a superhero in my book

[paper]

Batman doesn't need a gun.

New Cap = definition of the word punk

I am biased given my home town and its current climate.

[esophagus]

ya guys, doesn't everyone know that a gun is merely a tool? it's a matter of how they're used that's important not that it could POSSIBLY be used to kill people!
Sarcasm:rolleyes:

what horseshit, if a superhero uses a gun, he ceases to be a superhero in my bookI don't agree with the reasoning of it. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Just saying, it's not like he's running around shooting bad guys in the face.

[mikegraham6]

I don't agree with the reasoning of it. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Just saying, it's not like he's running around shooting bad guys in the face.
If he uses a shield to disarm baddies, and he doesn't plan on killing anyone with the gun, what's the friggin' point of it?
to turn AIM agents into parapeligics (sp)??

like i said: horseshit!

we're not in world war II anymore people

[esophagus]

If he uses a shield to disarm baddies, and he doesn't plan on killing anyone with the gun, what's the friggin' point of it?
to turn AIM agents into parapeligics (sp)??

like i said: horseshit!

we're not in world war II anymore people
Really though, it doesn't have to be WWII. Bucky has been going around since the war with a gun, and using it whether right or wrong. I understand why Brubaker gave him the gun. I dislike the gun in the way I think Iron Man is a dick, from a citizen of the Marvel U's point of view. The gun is being written well, so as a reader I don't much care, but I do think I'd be pissed to be there, and see superheroes carrying around even more lethal force than they already do.

[mikegraham6]

i'd argue it isn't being written well because from what i recall Cap uses his shield to disarm some AIM agents and then decides to shoot others in the knees. Why not just use the shield?

This world need less guns rather than more. He's a superhero, he should be above this, guns are what the bad guys use, not Cap. (and yes, The Punisher is NOT a superhero)
i ain't fer it, im again' it

[tad]

Using a gun means you're not a superhero.

But having razor claws coming out of your wrist does? Or optic blasts that can slice through metal? Or arrows?

Comics exists in a goofy universe where being thrown through a wall by a creature of super strength doesn't mean splattered brains, weapons can always be used with pinpoint accuracy and heroes heal when a real person would be crippled for life. Brubaker turned Captain America comics into a spy story and given a more "realistic" treatment but only within the context of the goofy comic universe.

[paper]

You could argue that he's trading one vice for another. The previous cap was essentially on steroids. This one carries a gun.

[mikegraham6]

i never called wolvie a superhero, dude's a murderer as well (cyclops hasn't killed anybody though)

[jurassicalien]

Not only should he carry a gun, he should carry a pimp cain.

[euchre0]

Bucky, since returning, has already made progress in changing back from the hardened Winter Soldier into James Buchanan Barnes, so it is a little premature to get upset by him carrying a gun. There's a fair chance that he'll begin to feel more convicted of using something Steve didn't an ween himself off of the gun.


Then again, he might not since he seemed to be using it to compensate for not being as strong or fast as Rogers.

[k33k3r]

Or able to use the sheild to the same ability of Steve.

[euchre0]

yeah, and that. :)

I keep waiting for his hand to shoot of like the old X-Man character Kane.

[dave-accampo]

You could argue that he's trading one vice for another. The previous cap was essentially on steroids. This one carries a gun.

Steroids are way more American that guns. ;)

[dave-accampo]

Really, I don't think anyone's complaining that Bucky shouldn't carry a gun. If you're following the character it fits.

And, most of us who grew up with Steve Rogers as a NON-gun-toting hero probably believe it fits his character to NOT carry a sidearm.

But -- and it's hard to say if this was the intention of the original poll -- when you step out of the comic book and just look at Cap as a symbol and icon, then there's a whole different argument. It's Cap as Uncle Sam.

The gun is very hawkish. Some would say it's very appropriate for our country. Or is it better that Cap represents the ideal of America. And isn't it cooler that he can use a defensive weapon (shield) to stop bad guys? That, while they shoot, he's better because he chooses NOT to? He's sort of ethically and morally superior? Like, we all know Superman could kill all the bad guys, but he's always been a sort of moral icon because he chooses NOT to kill and has the power to back that up, even though everyone's trying to kill him.

I'm not coming down on one side or another here, but I think there are a couple of distinctions that could be made for the character and the SYMBOL (and how that symbol looks to the external media).

[kahunablair]

With what just happened last issue with the renegade Shield Agents, I can see the gun being a major story element.

Imagine it this way.
There's a group of Dentists at a clinic that are laughing maniacally and giving kids with braces gum.
The parents flip out and go into an outrage. They want a new Dentist, so they hire the best.
The new Ultra Dentist walks in, except he has a bag of candy in his hand.

How comfortable would you be as a parent?
For some reason, I could see the American people having a hard time believing Bucky can fix things, when he's using a gun.

[euchre0]

So Steve Rogers was the dentist with the gum?:confused:


Is Bucky supposed to be a symbol, or is he a more under the radar guy? I forget if, when he took the mantle, he was accepting that he would be a big mighty symbol like Rogers was, or if he was just going to be Captain America.

[dave-accampo]

Is Bucky supposed to be a symbol, or is he a more under the radar guy? I forget if, when he took the mantle, he was accepting that he would be a big mighty symbol like Rogers was, or if he was just going to be Captain America.

Well, in my above post, I was talking about Cap as a cultural icon. Not WITHIN the Marvel Universe, but in the real world. IN the same way that Superman or Batman are.

I was thinking if CNN runs a story about Captain America with a gun -- what does the average American think about that? Is it cool? Does it bother anyone? Better still, let's say you gave a non-comics reader two choices: a Cap who is so skilled that he can use non-lethal force and defensive weaponry to combat is opponents or a Cap who kneecaps his opponents with a pistol.

Which one would they choose? Which one would they say is a better symbol for America?

That's what I was getting at.

[euchre0]

Well, in my above post, I was talking about Cap as a cultural icon. Not WITHIN the Marvel Universe, but in the real world. IN the same way that Superman or Batman are.

gotcha

[esophagus]

i'd argue it isn't being written well because from what i recall Cap uses his shield to disarm some AIM agents and then decides to shoot others in the knees. Why not just use the shield?

This world need less guns rather than more. He's a superhero, he should be above this, guns are what the bad guys use, not Cap. (and yes, The Punisher is NOT a superhero)
i ain't fer it, im again' itI think you misunderstood. There's no arguing that Brubaker's run of Captain America to date has been quality work. Whether you like the gun or not, it's a well written story. There's thought and motive behind every action. Including the gun. That's what I appreciate. Whether or not I like the gun, it's better than him just showing up and shooting everyone. As I said previously, I disagree with it as if it were my real world. If superheroes existed here, and one of them shot people, I would be up in arms about it. As far as writing goes, though, I think he's doing a damn fine job of it.i never called wolvie a superhero, dude's a murderer as well (cyclops hasn't killed anybody though) As far as I know (Not 100% though) Bucky hasn't killed anyone as Captain America either. Still, I think it's arguable. Do you think Wonder Woman's no longer a superhero?

[paper]

George Washington didn't need a gun! Bitch fought with his wooden teeth.

[esophagus]

George Washington didn't need a gun! Bitch fought with his wooden teeth.
I hear he died of termites.

Everyone has a weakness.

[animalvader1]

I think you misunderstood. There's no arguing that Brubaker's run of Captain America to date has been quality work. Whether you like the gun or not, it's a well written story. There's thought and motive behind every action. Including the gun. That's what I appreciate. Whether or not I like the gun, it's better than him just showing up and shooting everyone. As I said previously, I disagree with it as if it were my real world. If superheroes existed here, and one of them shot people, I would be up in arms about it. As far as writing goes, though, I think he's doing a damn fine job of it.As far as I know (Not 100% though) Bucky hasn't killed anyone as Captain America either. Still, I think it's arguable. Do you think Wonder Woman's no longer a superhero?

A superhero shooting bad guys is better than the bad guys shooting you, right? Both Bucky and Steve had and used guns in WWII, and Bucky's had one ever since. It's part of his MO, why change because he has a different costume on? Since Rogers freed his mind from the brainwashing, Bucky hasn't killed anyone, with a gun or not. Steve Rogers on the other hand, has killed that terrorist in Cap, Vol. 4, and Baron Blood way back in Cap #254.

And as for the other guy calling all heroes with guns "murderers": how do you feel about cops? They have guns, they shoot bad guys sometimes even killing them, but they aren't murderers. Comparing Bucky America to the Punisher isn't even close to accurate. Bucky's a soldier, Punisher's a sociopath...

[esophagus]

A superhero shooting bad guys is better than the bad guys shooting you, right? Both Bucky and Steve had and used guns in WWII, and Bucky's had one ever since. It's part of his MO, why change because he has a different costume on? Since Rogers freed his mind from the brainwashing, Bucky hasn't killed anyone, with a gun or not. Steve Rogers on the other hand, has killed that terrorist in Cap, Vol. 4, and Baron Blood way back in Cap #254.

And as for the other guy calling all heroes with guns "murderers": how do you feel about cops? They have guns, they shoot bad guys sometimes even killing them, but they aren't murderers. Comparing Bucky America to the Punisher isn't even close to accurate. Bucky's a soldier, Punisher's a sociopath...
Yeah, if you look back a bit you'll see I voted for "it depends who has it". I don't mind Bucky having a gun.

[animalvader1]

Yeah, if you look back a bit you'll see I voted for "it depends who has it". I don't mind Bucky having a gun.

Yeah, as I re-read my post, it came out differently than I'd hoped. I was trying to add to your comment, while still throwing in my own two cents, not flat out contradict you. Sorry for the confusion.:o

[esophagus]

Yeah, as I re-read my post, it came out differently than I'd hoped. I was trying to add to your comment, while still throwing in my own two cents, not flat out contradict you. Sorry for the confusion.:oDon't let it happen again.;)

I seem to misunderstand that a lot.

[animalvader1]

Don't let it happen again.;)

I seem to misunderstand that a lot.

(shudders) y...y...yessir esophagus sir :eek: (gulp)