I always reconciled that Steve Rogers didn't carry one because it would be either lethal or useless given his rogues gallery. However, logic dictates that there may be some middle ground where it would be effective and he certainly would use one then, being a man of WWII.

No problem with Bucky's gun, except that the Luger is an ugly weapon. He should have a 9 or a badass revolver.

John Walker would carry machine gun and use it indiscriminately.

I voted yes.

I went with "nah." He's the best hand to hand fighter in the Marvel Universe, and his shield-throwing skills are so finely tuned that he could almost knock the moon out of orbit with a well-timed toss. A gun is needless overkill.

IAWTP

I can see him using one during WW II, but not in the modern era.

No gun. he doesn't need one.

The scenes in Captain America: The First Avenger that looked the most Reb Brownish were the ones where he was getting shot at and not shooting back. The shield is great as an occasional offensive weapon. But when you're throwing it over, and over, and over... you start to realize... "Man, that thing takes a long time to throw and catch."

I have no problem with him using a gun. Need one or not, it totally doesn't bother me.

He could just mow everyone down. RATA-TATA-TA-TAT!

He should use a gun, a Capzooka, a Caparang, and he should ride around America fighting terrorists in the Capmobile:

I want to see him flying the HeliCAPter.

'A well timed toss' can solve a lot of issues...

Depends on what kind of stories you're telling. I think a simple rule of thumb would be that if the bad guys are using guns, give one to Cap as well.

If IMWAN and ICE are too big, do you want to see if the domain CAWAG is available?

I have no proble with him using a gun in war time (or on a battlefield) in fact I think it vital that he does.

Not so for modern cap dealing with super bad guys

Now I want a jeep, just to do that.

How about your Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man uses a gun? Or even the Wrath of God Ghost Rider uses a gun? No. Give Captain America a gun, or the other super-powered beings, and you bring him and them down to our level. It diminishes Captain America and every other superhero to use such weapons when they've no need of them.

Depends if he has the appropriate permit, really...

Captain America isn't just a superhero, though. He's a super soldier. Soldiers use guns. That's what makes it different from giving a gun to Spider-Man or Ghost Rider. I also don't see how a gun diminishes Cap, when a bow and arrow somehow doesn't diminish Hawkeye or Green Arrow, and a sword doesn't diminish the Black Knight.

First and foremost, Captain America is a superhero. The super-soldier serum made him a peak physical specimen with enhanced strength, reflexes, stamina and speedy healing, etc. The serum didn't make him a marksman or gunfighter. Does he need a gun? Consider the Batman. Does he need a gun? Like Captain America, Batman's a peak physical and mental human but, unlike Captain America, he's such by dint alone of dedicated training and self-improvement. He takes on antagonists who carry guns, beating them with sheer reflexes and superior brains. If Captain America with a super-serum coursing through his system and a brain bent on strategy can't get by without a gun and Batman can, then, yes, it diminishes him by comparison. Peak humans and superheroes don't need guns. If Captain America uses one, it diminishes what makes him different from mere men.

Finally, the gun is a different weapon from a sword. The gun enables one to disable, maim or kill a target from a distance without getting one's hands dirty, so to speak. That's why Batman considers it a coward's weapon. (Miller amplifies this principle of Batman's in his treatment of the character.) A bow and arrow too could be considered a coward's weapon, and it was in the Middle Ages when it was used to devastating effect in various battles, including and esp. Crecy, 1346. In the Middle Ages, the deadly crossbow even more so was condemned and banned variously by Papal Bulls and other legal enactments and treaties -- to no avail, naturally. When it comes to warfare, honour is always or, less cynically, usually first casualty to nihilistic pragmatism: victory before every other consideration. But Captain America is supposed to be noble, honourable, a good man. Would such a man sacrifice the principles of honour to the purely pragmatic? No way would he follow Indiana Jones's move posted by Jay above. He'd sling his shield, disable and knock out the swordsman, and be on his heroic way. That's better than what a mere man could achieve. That's why Captain America is or should be a superhero who doesn't carry a gun.