I prefer it, purely because it ensures there are no shades-of-grey here, but I also get the argument that a lot of people in Gotham die because Batman won't kill.

I think it does, and I think anyone arguing against it has brain worms

Yes, it does.

Here's the thing: people in Gotham are going to die because of crime-related things even if Batman did kill. If anything, Batman killing might make things worse for the people of Gotham as it could have the effect of ratcheting up the violence we see from Batman's enemies.

The idea some people have that Batman is somehow the only thing protecting Gotham in any form is always the thing that just confuses me -- and this carries over to how Batman stories are frequently written. We know canonically that the GCPD is corrupt, but we also canonically know that not all law enforcement in the city is bad and that Batman is NOT the only hero/vigilante.

Also, if you know why Batman has the no kill in comics (hint: editorial mandate because boy howdy some of those earlier stories were rough) then it REALLY makes sense because otherwise Batman is just an ass.

I think Batman's no-kill rule will always make sense for his character. However, I would be pretty upset if I lived in Gotham and read on the news that the Joker got away again 😂

It makes sense I think as he is trying to live to a higher ideal but also agree with Jerome like how many times is the Joker going to be allowed to commit crime.

3 hours ago, Drewr15 said:

It makes sense I think as he is trying to live to a higher ideal but also agree with Jerome like how many times is the Joker going to be allowed to commit crime.

It surprised my kids when they saw Captain America waste someone the first time and I had to remind them that he's not Batman 😂

No ... it doesn't make sense. I wrote why here: I Think Batman’s “No Killing” Rule Is His Biggest Mistake

15 hours ago, MAG said:

No ... it doesn't make sense. I wrote why here: I Think Batman’s “No Killing” Rule Is His Biggest Mistake

I'll go read this tonight.