When I was a kid watching westerns on TV, many a good guy shot a gun out of the hand of the bad guy. It stopped the attack and, it seems, stung a bit. Funny stuff! Saying that, yes, it happens. Tunnel vision is a thing. People tend to aim at what they’re looking at and what they look at when their life in on the line is the weapon that may kill them. Not the weapon, obvs, the person holding the weapon. Where was I? Batman . . .
The Caped Crusader began his career wielding a firearm. Robin’s benefactor eventually ditched his gat in the pursuit of political correctness. Not that disarming endeared him to the eventually, now eternally ungrateful people of Gotham City (a theme that bores the bejesus out of me). In his latest incarnation, Batman takes up a gun again: an anti-gun gun. A big one it is, too.
Fans of the comic book character may disagree – as comic book fans are wont to do about the smallest details surrounding their fictional heroes and anti-heroes – but that’s just plain ridiculous. Western fantasy aside (did I just write that?), the best way to stop a gunman is to stop the gunman who controls the gun. With a gun, usually. You know, one that shoots a projectile of some sort.
OK, sure, autonomous and semi-autonomous killer robots, drones and suchlike. As Batman’s about to find out, Superman’s gonna be a bitch to kill with any damn weapon system. (Speaking of which, et tu Supergirl?) In short, the idea of jamming a gun may appeal to technology nerds and hackers – a significant portion of Batman’s audience – but the anti-gun gun’s a bulky weapon with limited utility. Unless you’re anti-gun. Then it’s a hoot!
Then again, what about the possibility of government-controlled jammers taking out mandatory “smart guns”? I wonder if they’d use it on Batman’s anti-gun gun. Nah. He’d jam the jammers. Huh. Why do I feel a sudden desire to see Fury Road?