Cap's back...kinda

[RTTingle]

Uh, no, I didn't argue that. I said he has used a gun. That's not arguing to say he is something one way or another. It says...he uses or has used a gun type weapon. What you expand that into is a you thing and not what I painted it out to be. But thanks for proving my point again, that's why I asked EVERYONE to move off the gun subject until more stuff comes out to actually discuss. Now, it's getting messy and you (as well as I) am contributing to it. May I suggest we both stop and actually take my previous suggestion of...you know...waiting?

The issue is not being argumentive --- the issue is being way to inspecific about something.  You saying the Green Hornet is a gun toting hero is wrong.  You are the one who brought the list in as examples.  I had hoped to help you in seeing your mistake as seeing certain heroes as such when reality --- they were not. 

I even went so far as to help designate certain genres for you.

Not only that, I gave you some examples of better people instead to use as examples.

I even conceded with you on certain examples and told you why.

Thats not being argumentative.  That's called debate.

You said the issue than is that its not guns and heroes.  But which hero is using guns and you know what --- I agree.  But you have to use your examples correctly in supporting you're argument.  You simply didn't.

You also said to wait and see before I make my opinion.

Wait and see on what?  To read a story I don't care for?  I don't want to read about a Captain America that uses guns, plain and simple.  I don't care how good the story is.  Its why I'm not interested in Ultimates or other such stories.  I LOVE the Shadow.  But I'm not going to read a Shadow story when he's a robot - the same as I'm not going to read about as gun toting Captain America.  I simply refuse to do it.

You saying the type of gun it is doesn't matter.  I disagree.  It's also why your examples are so important as well.

Theres a big difference in a gun that shoots bullets and gun that sprays gas (not bullets!) and flashes light (not bullets!).  So big to me.... would it make a difference to me if the new Cap used those weapons instead, would I read it?  Maybe.  I would give it a chance.  I certainly wouldn't refuse it flatly --- like I do now knowing Captain America flat out uses a gun.

RTT

[Previsionary]

RTT, I'm being serious here. You're just attacking things now just to attack it. I didn't say The green hornet was anything. Perhaps you need to actually read all my posts, eh? I haven't accused any character of being anything. My focus has been fully on Bucky under the cap moniker. I really wish you'd just drop that and stop trying to start something when nothing is there. Heck I even said, and this is important:

* Black Widow
    * Crimson Avenger
    * Shooting star
    * The Green Hornet
    * Angela St. Grace/Codename: Knockout


That's only 27 or so heroes that have used guns and do you consider them bad guys?

That does not translate into gun toting, trigger happy, or having a gun club membership card superhero. It means exactly what it says, they have used a gun at one time or another [doesn't matter what it shoots. I've pointed that out too. A gun is a gun whether it shoots bullets or not. Like a balloon is a balloon whether it's full of air/helium or not]. Stop making arguments or will a moderator have to be called in to handle this particular matter? You're way overboard here and it's not necessary. The examples weren't even a major point to anything. They were there for one purpose and one purpose alone...to show that those particular characters HAVE used a gun. You, and only you thus far, have been expanding it beyond that point. That's not a problem of mine as I didn't even reference them beyond that point, I didn't bring up any genres, and I didn't bring up any situations because that just opens up more cans of worms that can become much messier than this thread has already become. I named characters and I moved on. Perhaps you should too. Don't wanna read the book, then don't read. Just understand that you can't argue fully on something you haven't read or experienced, just like all things experience related. No one is forcing you to or anything. Now really, if you have more steam to blow my way, there's a handy function--a pm function. You can send me all the messages ya want there, bud. I'll read them and hey, I might even respond with some witty banter and more indepth replies that require more time than necessary...but here in this thread...it's just becoming a little rude, ya know.

So, perhaps you can move on now and other people, for or against, can as well...when there's actually stuff...to...discuss...and...complain...about? :P

[RTTingle]

Whatever...

Someone made a statement that in general heroes don't use guns.

You presented a list of heroes who do.

You used examples of heroes who used guns, I debated them.  I don't care if they toted, wield or slung them.  Makes no difference.  But your examples were to broad and in some cases, at least in my opion wrong.  You also said bullets are bullets - magical or not and I agreed with you.  But what if what comes from a gun is not a bullet?  What if its not even really a projectile?  But a gas or flash of light?  You said they were still guns and compared them to the same as guns with bullets - said there was no difference what comes out of them.  I disagreed.

You're argument is a gun is a gun is a gun, irregardless what comes out of it.  I disagree.  You even used some poor examples assuming they used trick bullets, when some didn't.

You used some poor examples of heroes who used "guns".  I introduced better examples.

You can't handle the specifics, of the debate - fine.

Find better examples next time for your debate.

I agreed with you on the second half of the post and it was indeed a very nice post and very insightful and well presented.  For you the issue is clearly not that Cap is using a gun.  You want to discuss Cap being Bucky.  Then do so.

But the issue is for many that Cap is using a gun, irregardless of who it is.  I had hoped I made that clear, that I don't mind who Cap is.  What I'm in issue with is the gun, plain and simple.

You want to introduce a mod into it, fine.  I consider it arguing the finer points.  You don't want to fine.

Someone made a general statement, you made a list to support an argument of... what?  Heroes that used guns to support, what argument?

I tried to come along and help clarify and maybe steer this into something more specific.

I'm not blowing steam.  I'm not being personal.  I'm not even trying to be witty.  I'm trying to flat out debate.  If you can't handle someone coming back and debating you about guns and heroes and certain heroes that do use guns generally, and those that don't... then don't present a list in hopes to clarify heroes who generally DO use guns when --- especially if thats not what you care to debate or discuss.

I suggest you steer clear of the issue of the gun then, plain and simple.

I'm sorry you feel like you're being attacked, or whatever... but some people have different opinions than yours.  Some people have stronger opinions even.  I'm not sure if you feel you're enjoyment is being lessened from it --- apologies if it is.  But opinions are a fact of life.  You feel the gun isn't an issue.  Others do.  Plain and simple.  No reason why it shouldn't be present and debated about.  No one is flat out attacking you, flaming, or being demeaning to you.

RTT

[Podmark]

Having the comic being handled like a graphic novel version of '24' and most action suspence shows these days then it would make more sense to have a Captian that would handle this situation in his own way.

I just think that point is worth noting. Whatever arguements you can make for or against guns alot of them hinge on the genre of the series. And the current Cap title isn't a classic superhero book, it's well like quil said.

Within the context of this series it makes sense. Although I've never really seen anyone attack Bru's series (actually in all honesty I can't recall ever reading a negative comment about it), the problem seems to stem more from the image of Cap as an iconic figure.

[Previsionary]

many thanks, RTT. You've managed to fully misunderstand and blow out several of my statements [and somehow twist them into something I never stated. That takes skill]. Again, regardless of what comes out of a gun, a gun is a gun. Bullet types don't make a gun and it's silly to think so. It could be a bubble gun for all i care, it's still a gun. But yes, I really appreciated that.

also, I don't feel attacked and i can accept other peoples opinions without making a huge ordeal/scene and I try not to assume something that's not specifically stated. I, me alone, am just tired of the long drawn out arguments. I asked respectfully several times to stop it so the discussion could progress because this thread has been close to being locked several times. Sorry I tried to respect other people who may have wanted to join in and avoid arguments. That's why I offered you the pm option because what you're doing now, is rude to everyone that may glance in. It's not about me, it's about them, k. Oh, I didn't realize it was so much to ask for to stick to stuff I actually said without throwing in your several wrong assumptions, but that's cool too. Hopefully you'll tune it down soonish and perhaps even...move on to something else to debate about? It's only a comic sir, not something to actually act so extreme over.

Anyway, I, too, agree with crimson which is probably why I don't have a huge issue with it personally.

[the_ultimate_evil]

come on its been one issue with him in the suit and even then he knee capped someone, its not like he placed 2 between the eyes here. give it some time. i have no problem with him carrying a gun as long as they dont use it as a crutch, but the same could be said for wolverines claws, the punisher's guns or hell even batman's gadgets

[Protomorph]

[Moderator hat] Ok, you two. Debate is over now.

[tommyboy]

come on its been one issue with him in the suit and even then he knee capped someone, its not like he planet 2 between the eyes here. give it some time. i have no problem with him carrying a gun as long as they dont use it as a crutch, but the same could be said for wolverines claws, the punishers guns or hell even batmans gadgets

Given that I hate Woooooverines Klwas and Punishers Guns, saying it's only been one issue and he's only crippled three people (not one) carries little weight with me.
The "old" Cap may well have knocked out thirty Aim agents, with all the attendant "realistic" questions about skull fractures and brain damage. The difference is, unless otherwise stated, we can assume (or hope) that a "knocked out cold" villain always recovers without brain damage or loss of motor functions, because it's never (except one story where the Constrictor sues Hercules, and that had no lasting effects) been shown as otherwise. Ever.
In this issue we see three men shot in the kneecap from the front. From the back it is a non-crippling injury, (assuming no bone damage is done). Shooting someone in the patella, from the front (a smaller target than the calf, incidentally) is a crippling injury. If it isn't, then they can still shoot back, and they didn't. It is very painful, and very debilitating to be shot there, as opposed to a flesh wound elsewhere (ie, calf, thigh, bicep).All wounds hurt and are potentially life threatening, but the patella is bone, and shatters, the bicep calf and thigh are muscle and heal more quickly and completely. That is not my opinion, it is fact.
So we have to assume, reasonably, that "Bucky", as a highly trained agent of both the American and Russian secret services, knows all this, and chooses to use the shield as a decoy, then cripple them. And if you assume he is entitled to do that, as a "good guy", even though it is specifically cited that he acts outside of the law as a rogue, unlicensed hero (wherever you stand on that question), then you are OK with it. It's only "one issue", and three "terrorists". Morality only comes into play when he's crippled, or tortured, or murdered, thirty, or three hundred, or three thousand people, without arrest, due process, proof, evidence, or any of those other pesky barriers to waterboarding or naked human pyramids of "illegal non-combatants".
And citing that in WW2 comics Cap had a gun, or Bucky a flame thrower is about as valid as saying in those same issues all "Japs" were ugly buck-toothed cowards, so it must be OK to portray them that way now, huh? What was "true" then MUST be "true" now, ipso facto?
I never saw Kid Colt shoot a man in the kneecap, or Rawhide Kid. They always "unrealistically" shot the guns out of the Bad Guys hands. And it was absurd. Hooray for writers, editors and publishers who have the courage and honesty to show how a "real" bionically-armed-cryogenically-frozen-reprogrammed-assassin would act if confronted by "real" terrorists in yellow beekeeper outfits. Long may he apply electrodes to their gonads in the name of "liberty". After all, Cap would have, in WW2.(That is sarcasm, since theres no Emoticon for it)

I cannot deny that it is well written, and well drawn.
I have to concede that I cannot know "where it is going" in future issues.
And that worse has been shown by other heroes, or in other comics, (even WW2 Captain America comics).
But all those are criteria which matter not one whit when weighed against this issue.
He could have thrown the shield at their knees or heads, but doesn't (he chooses to bounce it twice then hit the AIM agent near Black Widow, arguably a trickier shot). He, and Brubaker, and those who enjoy this type of thing, make a deliberate choice, which is that shooting a man in the kneecap is "cooler", and "tougher" and "more realistic", than bouncing a Vibranium/adamantium shield off his head.
Yes, Adamantium/vibranium shields, men frozen in ice for 50 years, super-soldier formulas, blows that knock villains out without brain damage, all these are ludicrous. Ridiculous. Absurd. So why are you reading/writing comics about them if you hate it all so much?
If the conventions are so stupid, leave us "fanboys" to our stupid fantasies about decent, just, men and women who strive do do the right thing without killing or crippling, and have comics about the brave torturers and killers who strive to "protect freedom" like "Bucky" does.
And if we are going to cite the racist propaganda of WW2 as the model on which modern comics are to be based, let's go the whole hog. Have the courage of your convictions. Bucky has a flamethrower, Cap a gun, all "krauts" and "japs" are malformed cowardly thugs. Negroes are thick lipped caricatures and comedy relief. Women? Bait. Don't pick and choose, bring the whole unpleasant package, or leave it in the past where it belongs.
Stan Lee was a revisionist of the first order in his tales of Cap and Bucky in WW2 (under the restrictions of the CCA in the 60's). But do you know what? I prefer those 60's comics to WW2 propaganda, or to Brubakers nauseating "realistic" tribute to the sociopathic nonsense printed during WW2. This isn't 1943. We should know better by now.
I've read worse comics.
I've read more disturbing ones.
But this (Captain America #34) is still Wrong.
In. My. Opinion.
 

[Previsionary]

Well, referencing one thing doesn't exactly mean you're pulling up everything or agree with everything either. That's a huge jump to make for anyone. The cap with guns back then was relevant to the point now. I must say you really went a little too far in some of your points, but that's neither here nor there. Again, I must say, I said those people used guns, the question wasn't how they were used, the question was, were heroes really heroes if they used a gun.

I don't care for a good deal of many of the older comics that people refer to as the golden age because I don't agree with some of the depictions that came across then regarding races and women in general. Hello, they actually did an issue where Lois was an african american for a whole day and let's not forget that it used to be ok to show superman being super arrogant and they used to toy around with spanking. Saying it happened, doesn't mean anyone agrees with it...it means there's already a set precedence of it happening. But that'd only matter if superman came out spanking again or someone in his image. That's neither here nor there either. But people bought those issues, so I guess people back then thought it was ok...yet it's not around anymore either, right?

Buying an issue sends many messages and not one just set in stone. It can say, I enjoyed this issue for it's writing, but I didn't agree with this. It can say, I didn't enjoy this issue, but I loved the art. It can even say, I didn't enjoy anything, but I'm buying this so I can argue while supporting you Brubaker. It can say anything. If you really want Brubaker to know how you feel, send him a letter with your thoughts "spread out point for point" to him. That's actually sending him an exact message with your name letting him know exactly how you feel...and hey, sending a message is a lot cheaper than buying the issue then ranting/raving about it for days on end. :P

Sometimes, we readers, need to understand not everything is made for us. Comics have been changing every decade and complaining about it and fighting with each other over something we can't really control is pointless. They're gonna be more or less realistic depending on the core demographic (see zulu's thread for a good discussion about that) and it's really no worse than what we see on tv everyday. As crimson has stated, the current capt book has a new style to it. If this is the cap that fits the style for now, so be it...but we all know it isn't permanent and getting an aneurism over it isn't helping anyone, ya know.

[danhagen]

A handful of major super heroes are more than fictional characters. They are memes, meaning that they change to reflect the society they inhabit while retaining something of the culture that created them. Captain America is one of those. All those super heroes carry the cultural DNA of the 1930s into the present, but they also evolve with the times. If readers accept an armed Captain America, then it's an accurate reflection of the times, and will become part of the meme. If they don't, it's not, and it will be forgotten. The society at large is really the custodian of such characters, more than the company that owns them, and the public will ultimately decide.

[tommyboy]

Previsionary, yes, it's a little silly to pull up everything from WW2 comics.
But you, via the Brubaker quote, cited Bucky as a gun carrier via WW2 comics. I merely point out how selective he is being choosing those comics as his starting point. And how odious those comics are in so many ways, perhaps including gun-toting.
I prefer Stan Lee's constricted-by-the-CCA version where they carried no guns and killed/maimed as few as possible on-panel. That was good enough (until Brubaker's resurrection of Bucky) for 50-odd years. Realistic? No. Stupid? Yes. (In many ways the defining characteristics of the Superhero genre per se).
And I have read the issue, not bought it, and posted twice, not "ranting/raving about it for days on end". Those would appear to be your characteristics, not mine, to judge by this thread, (and your inability to let anyone post criticism without your reply).
I can post my opinions and let it rest, you are compelled to post again and again. Maybe YOU should be e-mailing Brubaker, then you could let this thread go.
Whatever you post in reply, I've said my piece, I think it (the story) a bad choice. Not Eeeeevil, just wrong. Not The End Of Days, just wrong. If later issues supply a context that makes my two posts wrong, I'll be happy, and you'll be right. I concede that in advance, since I've been wrong often enough in the past.
But today, this issue, I didn't like much.

[Talavar]

If you're willing to believe that everyone beaten unconscious in comics makes complete, perfect recoveries except when told differently in those rare cases, it's unreasonable to not extend that same conceit to non-lethal wounds of other kinds. 

Sure, with medical knowledge from real life we know that knee shots are generally crippling.  With medical knowledge from real life we should also know that getting beaten unconscious has serious consequences including neck damage, permanent nerve & spinal damage, brain damage, facial & skull fractures requiring reconstructive surgery, brain hemorrhages, etc.

Superhero comics are full of fantasy violence, but to bring that violence under the scrutiny of medical/biological fact only when it involves gunshot wounds is ridiculous.  Unless a storyline references a non-lethal gunshot victim as being crippled, I'm willing to cut that storyline the same slack I cut those where super-strong people punch others in the head.  To do otherwise is to have a weird double standard on what violence is acceptable, demonizing guns, but finding other types of violence perfectly fine.

Personally, I don't really like the death of Captain America storyline; I've enjoyed Brubaker's run quite a lot earlier, but this just doesn't appeal to me very much.  Condemning it on the basis solely of gun-use, however, bothers me.

[BentonGrey]

I've tried to stay out of this for the most part, largely because I haven't entirely made up my mind about the issues at hand.  It's funny, because I've started to post several times, but felt like what I had to say wasn't really necessary.  However, Talavar, I believe you're being a little illogical in your approach to the question of guns in comics.

It seems to me that the problems with guns is not one of "fetichizing," as you termed it earlier, but a practical one of image and interpretation.  When Cap hits someone with a shield, you can look at it and say, "Wow, that looks like it hurt, but he's probably still alright."  As you read, you fill in the blanks to make hand to hand combat less brutal than it might factually be (in most good hero books, but there are those that intentionally play up the violence of the world, which can be appropriate in certain contexts).  However, when someone gets shot, it is a great deal more difficult to make that mental leap.  A bullet is simply more deadly than a fist, a shield, a bo-staff, or any number of other objects, at least in the schema that we've been taught to read with.  That's the key, we're working in a world with an established logic, the acceptance of which is part of the suspension of disbelief that we all undergo when we pick up a comic book.  It's the same logic that dictates to our imaginations that a man can fly, aliens find something absolutely compelling about our little planet, and that a man dressed as a flying mammal could possibly be an effective crime fighter.  It's not a matter of consciously interpreting these signs, we're simply following the patterns of reading that already exist.  In mainstream superhero comics, the sign of the gun is, if not necessarily evil (which I don't believe you could generalize), most certainly a signifier for deadly force and traumatic wounds, whereas a punch or other hand combat blow signifies something completely different.

That being said, you should not be surprised, or for that matter, upset, when someone reacts very strongly to the sequence of signs presented in this comic.  There reaction is only to be expected.  I'm rather neutral on the whole issue.  I don't approve of any of the circumstances that exist around this story, or with his use of deadly force, but on the other hand, I understand that this could produce a very interesting story.  I even see a possibility for the issue itself to be the subject for a great character development.  I just don't really enjoy the apples and oranges arguing that's going on here.  Let's be reasonable.  The hero's use of a gun does carry certain logical narrative burdens and stigmas, the questions is not whether this is true or not, the question is whether it is worth it or not.  Prev. obviously believes so, Tommy obviously does not agree.  It's as simple as that.

[Podmark]

I just have to say that I found both Talavar and especially Benton's points to be quite interesting. Well said.

[Previsionary]

Ha, silly tommy. You're as funny as a hot pink lion dancing in a lime green tutu.

as I said in pm to ya, sir Benton, I can see your point and I'm glad you finally posted your opinion, sir. And surprisingly, it most likely won't spark a war of a million raving suns! May your aquaman finally get his just recognition. :P

[bearded]

danhagen really impressed me, with the talk of memes.
supers are all about symbolism and iconography. cap more than most.
winter soldier was a bad guy, right?
here's something to consider:
what would steve say to bucky, if he saw him shoot someone in the leg?  ok, let's take it out of context, the symbolism of cap and bucky being blurred by ultimates and military backgrounds.  switch the characters.  what would batman say to robin about shooting someone with a gun?  or to make it more accurate, what would bats say to nightwing, even as a peer and adult?

edit:  i just want to say, i'm having a blast with the dialogue here, and i'm sorry ppl seem to actually getting upset.  if i say anything that offends someone, at the slightest hint, i will drop so fast, you will think i was steve rogers.
edit again:  i said nightwing and bucky on purpose.  to draw a distinction.  'cause in this scenario it isn't nightwing/bucky, it is the former protege taking on the mentors actual identity!  he, at this time and moment, captain america!

[catastrophe]

Wolverine has cut of some terrorists arm, stabbed some guy through the head, cut of silver samurai's arm and slaughtered countless members of the yakuza in cold blood. I agree that guns are more a bad guy thing but Bucky isnt the same guy as steve, i cant understand how people compare the two anymore even if both used the mantle.

[bearded]

my point is that it is the mantle that counts.  it would be like capt america smoking cigarettes.

[tommyboy]

If you're willing to believe that everyone beaten unconscious in comics makes complete, perfect recoveries except when told differently in those rare cases, it's unreasonable to not extend that same conceit to non-lethal wounds of other kinds. 

Sure, with medical knowledge from real life we know that knee shots are generally crippling.  With medical knowledge from real life we should also know that getting beaten unconscious has serious consequences including neck damage, permanent nerve & spinal damage, brain damage, facial & skull fractures requiring reconstructive surgery, brain hemorrhages, etc.

Superhero comics are full of fantasy violence, but to bring that violence under the scrutiny of medical/biological fact only when it involves gunshot wounds is ridiculous.  Unless a storyline references a non-lethal gunshot victim as being crippled, I'm willing to cut that storyline the same slack I cut those where super-strong people punch others in the head.  To do otherwise is to have a weird double standard on what violence is acceptable, demonizing guns, but finding other types of violence perfectly fine.

Personally, I don't really like the death of Captain America storyline; I've enjoyed Brubaker's run quite a lot earlier, but this just doesn't appeal to me very much.  Condemning it on the basis solely of gun-use, however, bothers me.

You make some good points.
The conventions of comic book violence are that after the knockout blow or punch to the head we often see the villain move and talk. Not always, but often enough to establish a genre convention that, like Tom and Jerry, or The Coyote and Roadrunner, no permanent damage is ever done. Other genre conventions are that the hero is rarely hit by bullets, almost never fatally, or even wounded seriously. So it's fair to say that we should extend Bucky/Brubaker the courtesy of assuming these conventions apply to our nameless AIM agents and their knees. Unless shown otherwise we must assume that somehow they will be back on the street or in prison within a few weeks, I guess. I'll concede that to you.

My dislike of this scene is not because I particularly hate the use of guns, or want a two-tier system where gunshots are treated in one way and blows from magic hammers in another. My dislike is that given a multitude of possible ways to have a hero take down three foes, he chose to shoot them in the kneecap. Now, had he shot them in the face or groin, I would have liked it even less. Had he shot the guns out of their hands or fired "tranquiliser" bullets, I would have liked it a bit more. It just seemed unnecessarily nasty to me, even in a genre that is overwhelmingly violent. And I realize that my position is somewhat illogical, but reactions to Art often are.
This one scene does not signify that Brubaker's whole Cap run is worthless, nor does Bucky's gun say much about real-life America or humanity in general. As many have pointed out, lots of heroes have, and do, carry guns, and we don't know if in two issues time Bucky might decide its not needed after all.
All of this is reasonable, but it's also reasonable for me to say that just as I felt a bit queasy reading the New Avengers issue where the super-strong, 500lb, steel hard skinned Luke Cage beats the 180lb, powerless Purple Man to pulp, I felt a bit queasy watching Bucky kneecap three guys. These things don't feel "heroic" to me (in the modern, comic book meaning of the word, not the ancient greek "fearsome warrior" sense).
I wouldn't say that they Ruin the comic for me, or make me want to quit reading, or are signs of anything of consequence.
But I don't much like them.
Others can barely notice such scenes, or enjoy them, and not be in any sense wrong. But for me they jar enough to post on message boards once in a while to say that, and to try to express why.



     

[danhagen]

In terms of symbolism, I have to add that I can only regard having a "Captain America" who was a ruthless KGB assassin as an outrageous black comedy joke.

[doctorchallenger]

I have kept from posting here for much the same reasons as Benton.  In general, I'm out of comics so I can say that "These are not MY superheroes" with that smug sense of self satisfaction that comes with being smug and self-satisfied. My main problem ithe the new Cap is that it is Bucky.  The revival of Bucky was predictable, but undermines much of the character development of Captain America since the character's Silver Age revival. The death of Bucky is what changed Cap from a typical WWII patriot character to a uniquely Marvel character - loaded with the requisite angst.  I also have major qualms with transforming Bucky into a behind-the-scenes black ops agent DURING HIS TENURE WITH CAP.  This damages Cap as a character, in that how could a person who has been portrayed as a natural at assessing another's weaknesses and strengths an make best strategic and tactical use of that information, been so blind to the "true nature" of his sidekick. It is for these reasons that I can not appreciate the current storyline.

That being said, I do not think a gun-toting Cap replacement is necessarily a bad-thing character-wise.  I agree, Tommy, that actions like knee-capping are highly distasteful. But given the parameters of the character (ex-black-op assassin), I can see a possible diection of character development, that WS grows to understand that "Captain America" has a different meaning, that he has to embrace a more noble vision of the role.  One possible line of logic is that Bucky, not having worked with Cap since his early days, sees the role only in its most prototyical form, that of super-soldier, the role assigned to Steve Rogers by the US Government. Not having been along for Steve Roger's ride, he does not comprehend the evolution that the role has undergone sole at the direction of Steve Rogers.  Captain America has transcended the super-soldier role, and aquired greater meaning as an American icon. The gun could serve as an emblam that this character must go through this learning process, and the rejection of the gun could symbolize the redemption of both Captain America (the role) and Bucky (the character).

THAT being said, I would be surprised if this actually takes place...

My two cents, take it for what its worth.

[danhagen]

Interesting observations, Doc Challenger. I agree. This could be used as a springboard for a philosophical story line about heroism, although I, too, doubt that it will be.

[Talavar]

If you're willing to believe that everyone beaten unconscious in comics makes complete, perfect recoveries except when told differently in those rare cases, it's unreasonable to not extend that same conceit to non-lethal wounds of other kinds. 

Sure, with medical knowledge from real life we know that knee shots are generally crippling.  With medical knowledge from real life we should also know that getting beaten unconscious has serious consequences including neck damage, permanent nerve & spinal damage, brain damage, facial & skull fractures requiring reconstructive surgery, brain hemorrhages, etc.

Superhero comics are full of fantasy violence, but to bring that violence under the scrutiny of medical/biological fact only when it involves gunshot wounds is ridiculous.  Unless a storyline references a non-lethal gunshot victim as being crippled, I'm willing to cut that storyline the same slack I cut those where super-strong people punch others in the head.  To do otherwise is to have a weird double standard on what violence is acceptable, demonizing guns, but finding other types of violence perfectly fine.

Personally, I don't really like the death of Captain America storyline; I've enjoyed Brubaker's run quite a lot earlier, but this just doesn't appeal to me very much.  Condemning it on the basis solely of gun-use, however, bothers me.

You make some good points.
The conventions of comic book violence are that after the knockout blow or punch to the head we often see the villain move and talk. Not always, but often enough to establish a genre convention that, like Tom and Jerry, or The Coyote and Roadrunner, no permanent damage is ever done. Other genre conventions are that the hero is rarely hit by bullets, almost never fatally, or even wounded seriously. So it's fair to say that we should extend Bucky/Brubaker the courtesy of assuming these conventions apply to our nameless AIM agents and their knees. Unless shown otherwise we must assume that somehow they will be back on the street or in prison within a few weeks, I guess. I'll concede that to you.

My dislike of this scene is not because I particularly hate the use of guns, or want a two-tier system where gunshots are treated in one way and blows from magic hammers in another. My dislike is that given a multitude of possible ways to have a hero take down three foes, he chose to shoot them in the kneecap. Now, had he shot them in the face or groin, I would have liked it even less. Had he shot the guns out of their hands or fired "tranquiliser" bullets, I would have liked it a bit more. It just seemed unnecessarily nasty to me, even in a genre that is overwhelmingly violent. And I realize that my position is somewhat illogical, but reactions to Art often are.
This one scene does not signify that Brubaker's whole Cap run is worthless, nor does Bucky's gun say much about real-life America or humanity in general. As many have pointed out, lots of heroes have, and do, carry guns, and we don't know if in two issues time Bucky might decide its not needed after all.
All of this is reasonable, but it's also reasonable for me to say that just as I felt a bit queasy reading the New Avengers issue where the super-strong, 500lb, steel hard skinned Luke Cage beats the 180lb, powerless Purple Man to pulp, I felt a bit queasy watching Bucky kneecap three guys. These things don't feel "heroic" to me (in the modern, comic book meaning of the word, not the ancient greek "fearsome warrior" sense).
I wouldn't say that they Ruin the comic for me, or make me want to quit reading, or are signs of anything of consequence.
But I don't much like them.
Others can barely notice such scenes, or enjoy them, and not be in any sense wrong. But for me they jar enough to post on message boards once in a while to say that, and to try to express why.
 

It is a brutish scene, I agree.  It brought to mind a scene from Terminator 2, and I don't really want Captain America acting like the Terminator. 

I used the term "fetishizing" in regards to guns earlier because all too often that's what happens in popular entertainment.  If it's something aimed remotely at children, guns are typically demonized.  At different times in animation characters haven't been able to hold guns, point them at characters, shoot anything that wasn't an energy beam, etc.  Only villains use guns, and even then, almost no one is ever actually hit by a gunshot.  The flip side of that is so many action movies practically being gun-porn, with elaborate weapons & violence that take it to a crazy, stylized place equally devoid of reality. 

Guns are weapons, essentially tools of violence, but they're no better or worse than other tools of violence - including the fists of super-powered people.  It's when people build guns up mentally so much, for good or bad, that they become the object of fixation that they are at times.  That Luke Cage scene is another brutish one, but I'm glad you mention it, because it shows you're not discriminating between types of violence.

The question of whether someone who uses guns can be heroic is tougher to answer.  Unless you take it to an extreme, where the character has such perfect aim that he consistently shoots weapons out of hands and that sort of thing, a gun-wielding character is going to wound and kill his enemies.  Can a character who kills his enemies be heroic?  I'm inclined to say yes, but it's a qualified yes.  Situation, context and even genre are important, and it's a tough fit for a superhero comic.  But I don't think a character using a gun immediately puts them in the same category as the Punisher, or Az-bat, or other vicious anti-heroes.

[Previsionary]

Ok, new comic, so I hope we all can stay civil and not rip each other to shreds...again. No gun this issue so it shouldn't even be a problem until it returns somewhere down the line...if it does at all.

I pretty much enjoyed this issue. Bucky seems to have gotten better with the shield in a relatively short amount of time and Sin returns back into the plot. Yay! The book also ends on another cliffhanger...two even. Cliffhangers are fine and all, but a bit more of a resolution would be nice by now. That's one of my main problems with long arc stories...it takes so long for it all to end and tie together that important plot points are usually forgotten by the readers.

[tommyboy]

A pretty good issue.
Yay for no gun.
Some of the art looked a bit awkward in the fighting scenes, but never got too bad.
When did the Black Widow stop being Natasha and become Natalia? Or was that her original name, retconned in somewhere along the line that I missed or can't remember?
I agree, some resolution would be good soon. I'm getting 'Lost' syndrome with Bru's books nowadays. They are always entertaining, and excellently crafted (like the TV show 'Lost'). But I feel like I'm constantly being strung along, and there's not going to be a pay-off thats possibly worth a year of my attention (not constant attention, but I have to remember stuff from 2007). No doubt in-trade, it'll read fine, but increasingly, individual issues are becoming slightly irritating to read, as I know in february that I wont see how this all turns out 'till july.     

[GhostMachine]

http://captain-america.us/images/wallpaper/capcomics/cap22.jpg

http://captain-america.us/images/wallpaper/capcomics/cap25.jpg

http://captain-america.us/images/wallpaper/capcomics/cap27.jpg

http://captain-america.us/images/wallpaper/capcomics/cap29.jpg

http://captain-america.us/images/wallpaper/capcomics/cap31.jpg

http://captain-america.us/images/wallpaper/capcomics/cap33.jpg

http://captain-america.us/images/wallpaper/capcomics/cap36.jpg

Probably a lot more examples, but I decided to stop looking after #37.

[Podmark]

Buck's all over the guns in those pics. Nice to see where Bru's inspiration came from.

[GhostMachine]

Buck's all over the guns in those pics. Nice to see where Bru's inspiration came from.

My point in posting those is that Bucky actually did carry guns and shoot people in the WWII era comics. It wasn't until the post-Code era after Cap had been revived when Bucky was shown only using hand to hand combat and acrobatics in the war.

All Bru did was bump up Bucky's age a bit and make Bucky a trained assassin instead of just a kid packing heat, which really makes sense if you think about it.

[Previsionary]

When did the Black Widow stop being Natasha and become Natalia? Or was that her original name, retconned in somewhere along the line that I missed or can't remember?

Her real name is Natalia, but she also goes by Natasha (alias). SHe's a spy, so I assume she has many names she goes by, but Natasha is just the most common. The earliest I can remember this being mention is during her champion days.

[NeoDarke]

Buck's all over the guns in those pics. Nice to see where Bru's inspiration came from.

My point in posting those is that Bucky actually did carry guns and shoot people in the WWII era comics. It wasn't until the post-Code era after Cap had been revived when Bucky was shown only using hand to hand combat and acrobatics in the war.

All Bru did was bump up Bucky's age a bit and make Bucky a trained assassin instead of just a kid packing heat, which really makes sense if you think about it.

Well, he was in the armed forces. So if he didn't have any passing skill with weapons, they seriously, what happened? Even Cap had skill with them, he didn't like using them, but he knew how to. Besides, no one who ever want to go to war, let alone think they can go to war and not come back with blood on their hands. Be it from the enemy or from a dying ally.

As to the costume, honestly? I like it. It's not as painful to look at as the Iron Spider, and even that grew on me. However, the costume it's self doesn't matter. The real question is, can Bucky give off the feeling that he is Captain America? I'm not just talking about to the public, I'm talking about to himself and to us, the readers.

Those are some pretty big shoes to fill, and yet, out of everyone who could fill them, the only one that I could honestly say could fill them the best would be Bucky. Because Bucky knows Cap, knows how he thinks, or how he did think. So working off of his memories of teaming with Cap, as well as holding up to the ideals of what Captain America, and I'm talking about the identity of Captain America, not Steve himself, stood for.

If Bucky can do that, if Bucky can make Steve, when he returns, look back at all of the things Bucky did as Captain America, and makes Steve ask himself if he should really take the mantel back up, after seeing the good Bucky has done with it. Then I think we can say that Bucky has earned his place as one of the Captain America's. Besides, running around as Cap might help Bucky "wash away" the sins of his past as the Winter Soldier.