ITEM: Do we kill? For 70 years, we have known of real murderers, kidnappers, arsonists, etc. in the real world. We do not go out to kill them, although certainly it would make a kind of sense; if you want to keep yourself, your family, your neighborhood safe, you make sure that these people cannot harm you.

But we don't do that. Be it morals, religious restrictions, or just fear, we don't arm ourselves and go out killing "villains" (although if they wore colorful costumes and had notorious gimmicks, that would make it easier.) We have designates to achieve this - police, sheriffs, federal marshals, etc. They have been empowered, and have both the responsibility and authority to act against these evil people on our behalf.

This has been pretty strongly reflected in comics. There aren't a lot of citizens who go hunting for revenge or preventative action. It's the police, and our super heroes.

ITEM: What would it be like for heroes' reputations to be known as killers? If Superman or Daredevil were murderers, who could trust them? True, it would likely cut down on crime; but perhaps in the wrong way. Further, mistakes happen, and we trust* that our guardians who kill someone are doing so for the right reasons and for our protection. But wrongful deaths occur, identities are mistaken, and who would want to take the chance of going outside on the chance that they might make a mistake and get killed by Captain America or Batgirl?

*At least, that's the plan. For this discussion, I take this as a given... unless it is a specific plot point, and those are far and few between.

ITEM: There's a matter of degree of response. Robbing a bank or picking a pocket probably isn't worth killing the perpetrators. Most super heroes aren't in mortal danger enough to justify killing a mugger or dirty union boss' thugs. A carjacking, stealing from a museum, etc. just don't seem to be the type of actions that deserve killing.

ITEM: There are laws and courts that decide such things, and it's probably better for comic sales to assume that such have been effected after a criminal is incarcerated. It doesn't often seem that the super heroes are in a situation where they know they must kill or the crook will be back at it soon. Yes, it does happen, surely, but killing the bad guys seems extreme as far as super heroes are involved.

ITEM: There are times that letting a bad guy die - or, to be frank, killing them - is called for. Any war comic. Most western comics. Sword and sorcery comics. If it's a "the only way to save her is to kill me" scenario, or a similar choice situation.

But let's be honest; this is COMIC BOOKS. The idiom shouldn't lend itself to killers, I think - even though they've become the vogue, it seems. For the past few generations, the target audience wasn't one that should see super killers wandering around. Recently, it's changed; but there was a long tradition of "Bring 'em back alive." That also makes for a more exciting story, I think.

I think that comic books just shouldn't have super heroes who kill. We do not go around killing each other wantonly - even if horrific events occur far more regularly than we want. I want comic book super heroes to be something to aspire to, not to descend to.

Batman existing as a paragon of justice in crime-riddled Gotham is the interesting contrast. A morally-compromised Batman knocking around in a morally-compromised Gotham is less interesting I think, almost banal.

An important point in DKR--which Frank confirmed for me, but which almost everyone seemed to miss--was that Bruce had retired, and thus betrayed his oath. THAT was why he was off the deep end.

Sadly, it seems Frank Miller forgot this himself. For instance, his take on Batman in "All Star Batman and Robin" is a man who already is off the deep end.

Should heroes kill? Not if they can avoid it. That's part of what makes them a hero. Police officers might be trained to kill, but their intent is supposed to be about keeping the peace, protecting innocents, and bringing criminals to justice. The same is supposed to apply to a super hero. Anti-heroes like Punisher explore another avenue of thinking and storytelling, but that's what makes him and his ilk "anti-heroes."

That noted...

I get what you're saying, and I realize you likely are referring to just mainstream super-hero comics, but I feel the need to stress that comic books can tell any kind of story. Again, I agree that as a rule super-heroes shouldn't kill. However, I would stop short of saying they shouldn't kill because the stories are told in the comic book medium.

For me, they shouldn't kill because most mainstream super-heroes were created for a young or all-ages audience. However, I also believe that comic book storytelling is as legitimate as any other storytelling medium. Comics are pictures grouped most of the time with text, and therefore any story can be told in the medium. So, it's not that the heroes shouldn't kill because it's a comic book, but because it isn't appropriate for the audience for that particular comic book character.

And no, Zack Snyder, Batman doesn't kill -- he doesn't need to because he's just that skilled a fighter, and yes, it breaks his moral code, and because although he does basically a policeman's job he's not actually a policeman.

He's not the Shadow, he's not the Punisher, etc. 

Super-heroes start from a position of power. The strongest among them are essentially gods. For them to use their nearly limitless abilities to exterminate their enemies should never be done casually. It seems self-evident to me that Superman would never have cause to murder Lex Luthor, for example.

Anyone tasked with writing these characters should be inventive enough to find more elegant of dispatching the bad guys than simple homicide.