>>26608 >Which heroes would support the government taking away people's guns? Note that people will say Batman, but that's not true. He doesn't like guns and refuses to personally use them, but he allows others to. Batgirl, though? She's always been a left wing authoritarian cunt. Green Arrow would totally be a gun grabber, though. And he'd try to argue that using a bow is totally different. Marvel's whole Civil War event could also be seen as a metaphor for things like this. Iron Man would likely be a gun grabber, with the same logic he'd use for superhero registration. Again, he'd act like it's okay for him to be Iron Man because he's authorized by the government, so it's okay that he turned himself into a walking gun. The various characters who sided with him and didn't change sides by the end of the story would then follow similar logic. >Which villains would support taking away people's guns? Dr. Doom. Magneto. Yes, it would be hypocritical for Magneto. He's a massive hypocrite. The Kingpin. A lot of the X-Men villains who are in favor of Mutant Registration. It's honestly easier to list characters who would be against taking away guns. Both heroes and villains. Most wouldn't care, and many are right-leaning or libertarian. Or you have guys like Lex Luthor who would want whatever gives people a leg up, as long as they aren't Superman.

>Which Xs would support taking away people's guns? A strange question to ask considering the honest answer is generally "whoever the writer wants, even when it makes no sense". Though ideally, even the most hoplophobic superhero would understand the right to self-defense, even when they don't agree with it. Especially in settings where most of the criminals either have powers or superior tech on their side. Also, the Squadron Supreme's 1985 mini-series has them literally seizing guns from everybody as part of an attempt to set the world right after most of them were brainwashed into overthrowing the world's governments.

>>26611 >A strange question to ask considering the honest answer is generally "whoever the writer wants, even when it makes no sense". Technically, but even then, people would recognize it as being "out of character." The characters exist beyond what the writers force them to do, hence how something can be out of character. So OP's question still makes sense.

>>26610 Luthor would be in favor of kryptonite tipped bullets but against non Earthlings owning body armor.

>>26608 The heroes from the retarded russian avengers-like movie.

>>26625 The what now?

>>26626 It's called Guardians, from 2017

This topic reminds me of a a DC Adventures (rebranded Mutants and Masterminds) character I did once. She was partial owner of an energy weapons company that specialized in mail order of small, portable, relatively cheap blasters most jurisdictions are totally blank on because they don't meet the definition of "firearm". Was convinced Gotham's Batman was a either a super villain or mercenary criminals sic on their rivals. After all, why else would he leave Bruce Wayne alone when that man's lobbying dollars are responsible for keeping the average Gothamite defenseless?

Honest answer? None. You are not heroic if you want a big government to create a "utopia" which perpetually "protects" everyone.