the "Why didn't they just shoot Voldemort?" thread
- Thread starter DudeistBelieve
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The charm is just against anything none magical, it isn't specific to certain types of damage, it just has to be something that is powerful enough that it continuously harms him. Like if they made a bullet out of a basalisk fang, or dipped it in the venom, that might have done something. The wizarding community knows what guns are, they just have no use for them. They always have their wands on them and the wands can kill people just as easily as a gun could if they so wished. Why would they ever even need a gun with this type of power at hand?SaneAmongInsane said:
Also, let's think about this logically. Voldemort only came out of hiding totally for one year before he died, probably even less. Harry had no way of getting close to him, and neither did anyone opposing him. He became the ruler of the British wizarding community, and his only enemies were also wizards, so it was a very small group. How exactly would they ever even get the chance to shoot him? Except for in the end, they really wouldn't have gotten such a chance, and at that point, Harry killed him fairly easily with a wand, so a better question than "Why didn't they just shoot Voldemort," would be "Why on earth would they try something so impractical as an assassination with a gun?" It was much safer to slowly chip away at his extra lives first, then kill him, than just to run in guns a blazing, possibly fail, and even then if someone else succeeds, they would still have to destroy the horcruxes anyway. You might as well chip away at the armor out of sight before you go in for the kill.
And as for the American wizards, maybe they still operate under the Monroe Doctrine of staying out of Europe's business. It's not like they ever show up, even for Quiditch. All the other countries they play are European or Slavacian. It's not like Voldemort became ruler of the world, it was only Magical Britain.
I'm going to call you out on that one. The only opposing forces of Voldemort was a small group of rebels that had two years to prepare any resistance. They don't exactly have access to missles. Explosives, sure, that's easy to make, but I'm doubting they have legitimate missles. And had they asked any muggles to help, my main guess would be that the muggles would just destroy the entire wizarding world, not just the tyrant wizard. It might not have happened that way, but that's something worth being afraid of, especially in a world where you already have to hide your own existance for safety.Spade Lead said:
Man that would be so hardcore. Like if Hagrid or someone just pulls out a gun and "Blap Blap"; book's over before it started.
Okay, I'm gonna disclaim this by saying I only really know the movie-verse....klaynexas3 said:
SHENANIGANS! I CALL SHENANIGANS!
THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT GUNS ARE!
They freaking state that no one is INTERESTED in the muggles or what technology they have. Freaking Ron Weasley's father is the only cat who pays attention to them, because that's his job, and... Christ did you see what era car that he had that he thought was so novel? Or even the giant dude's motorcycle? All of it out of date in a very contemporary earth (last movie, the girl in the sand which shop was rocking an Ipod).
They do NOT have the concept muggle weapons, if they did at all it would be grossly out of date. I can not believe their spell can just protect them from things they don't even have a concept of. Would the charm protect against a tazer? Hell, even more extreme, by that logic we could drop a nuke on Volde and he could survive that too.
Also, yeah I like the theory of the "Magic Gun". The advantage of a gun over a wand? The person you'd be trying to kill would be expecting a wand, they wouldn't have any clue what a gun is until the bullet hits them. And even then they're going to be all "WTF?"
Okay, good point, HOWEVER practically every movie ends with Harry coming face to face with Volde's knew incarnation. Fucker was going to keep showing up, after about the 2nd time, Harry doesn't consider anything else to protect him except magic? Like... Homeboy is spending his summers IN OUR WORLD! He didn't go to a movie or watch something on TV, see a movie with a gun and think "Maybe?"
With a gun, the first time he encounters Voldemort with him, he could just blast him with it when the guy isn't expecting it... BAM! Dead Volde. And you could probably get away with this AT LEAST once if not TWICE before Voldemort figures out a way to defend himself.
And yeah, Harry still has to get the Horcruxes but it takes a while for Voldemort to reform so he's actively buying himself time.
[qoute]And as for the American wizards, maybe they still operate under the Monroe Doctrine of staying out of Europe's business. It's not like they ever show up, even for Quiditch. All the other countries they play are European or Slavacian. It's not like Voldemort became ruler of the world, it was only Magical Britain.[/quote]
If I'm not mistaken, America is represented in the Quiditch video game is it not? Then again, is that even Cannon?
Because J.K. Rowling wanted more of a seven year epic and less seven second COD gun wanking. This is what we call "thinking about something too much," because really when you get down to it, every single modern fantasy could have been solved with weapons. The problem is that would've made it as boring as fuck, and do we really want that?
Amen, sir.coolbeans21 said:
"I've got a fallen angel in my head, begging to show me the secrets of the universe. The leader of the Black Denarians, a guy who's been around since before Christ and has forgotten more about magic than Merlin ever knew, would make me his apprentice. The immortal Queen of the Winter Fae means to have me as her Knight. I've got a dozen supernatural superheavyweights falling all over themselves trying to give me more power, and a dozen more who owe me favors.
"Now, listen up, because I'm only going to tell you this once. You want to tango with me, that's fine. Maybe you'll win, maybe you won't. But if you ever come at me through my friends or family again, I am going to accept every one of those offers. Then I am going to cash in every one of my chips. And then I am going to come for you.
"Now, run away, little monster, and hide in your hole." -- The Mad Wizard, Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden, to Mavra (heavily paraphrased as I can't be arsed to look it up)
OT: What is the name of the trope that means, "this villain is too badass to die from mundane means such as gunfire. He must be killed in a special way -- for example, by being simultaneously strangled, thrown off a cliff, shot, and blown up"?
The only real answer is, "It served the needs of the story to have Voldemort survive until the end."
You're overthinking it.
No, they actually do. When they discuss what happened with Peter Pettigrew(in the books of course) they say that what the muggles saw was him shooting Peter with a gun. They have very little concept of most muggle technology, such as a rubber duck, but they would have to know what guns are, as they have shaped the history of the world rather much. They're an inclosed community, but I doubt that they would be able to ignore the wars going on outside their world. As for why Harry not using a gun in the end, I suppose an arguement against that is if he did, he would have died with Voldemort, as he wouldn't have been able to stop the killing curse had Voldemort cast it.SaneAmongInsane said:
I never played that, so I'm not about to say much with that, but having never heard anything about them in either the books or movies, I'm less likely to count them as true, but even if they did play Quiditch together, then that wouldn't mean they would necessarly help them out with their tyrant ruler.
Yeah, not that I was angry or anything and thinking, "Dumbledore's not gay! He's not all feminine and shit!"...but it just seemed like Rowling said it just to say it. It makes no difference what sexuality Dumbledore is, since sexuality barely even plays a role in the Harry Potter series (and why the fuck should it? It's a series about a bunch of kids in a magic school fighting a near-immortal Dark Lord).Treblaine said:
I don't think Ian McKellen's Gandalf had anything to do with it. I think maybe she just did it because there are literally no gay characters in the Harry Potter universe, so she picked one of the only characters that never had an explicit relationship with the opposite sex. I don't think it's implied that he's celibate, or that it's giving the gay-bashing Christian fundamentalists what they want (they already hate Harry Potter because of its "Satanic undertones" anyway).
His past relationships, if any (and no, even if he didn't have relationships wouldn't make him celibate; celibacy is a conscious choice to not pursue sexual relations, not just being someone who can't get laid), don't come into the story. It's like saying that Charlie Weasley's a celibate heterosexual because he "prefers dragons to women", and we never see or hear about him dating a girl.
Either way, she said it, no-one really cared, and the world moved on. To be honest, I doubt she really cared either. She probably just decided it on a whim, thought, "Hey, it might be nice to try it out..." and said, "Yeah, Dumbledore's probably gay." To be fair, he is her character; she can say whatever she wants about him. Just like Stan Lee could say Wolverine sexually abused Jubilee.
"so she picked one of the only characters that never had an explicit relationship with the opposite sex."Relish in Chaos said:
Well that's not very good reasoning.
Homosexuality is not the antithesis of heterosexuality. Gay people can have straight affairs just like straight men only around men (such as in Prison or in the Navy) may have fleeting relationships with other men.
"it's (not) giving the gay-bashing Christian fundamentalists what they want"
But it's also not exactly challenging them either. It's not asking them to accept any relationship, just a banal unsupported aspect of the character. I mean equally Gandalf of LotR fiction could be gay, can't really be concise one way or the other.
Yes, she can do what she wants... and equally I can accuse her of tokenism and you have to respect my opinion.
I wanted her to DO SOMETHING with this rather than try to win points pandering to both sides.
Yes, she can do what she likes... that doesn't mean she can do no wrong. Don't mistake "copyright" for "never wrong".
PS: revenge of the living thread, this died back in APRIL!!
![Violator[xL]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/24/24558.jpg?1620210777){kind=avatar}
A straight up war with the Muggles, now I'd like to see a spin-off about that. Shooting up those annoying buggers in Hogwart's with Rheinmetall 120mm Smoothbore tank guns.
(Sorry. I was too old for Harry Potter)
(Sorry. I was too old for Harry Potter)
I think this a lot as well. Spoiler alert!
I was watching one of the movies with my family around when the olympics were on, not sure of the name but they escape a bank or something by freeing a dragon and flying away.
The moment he started flying my first thought was "Wait, the olympics are on arn't they? And they have Anti air missles stationed all over the city? And that dragon is a UFO?" then I burst out laughing and had to leave before I spoiled the film for my family who was enjoying it.
I will admit I love thinking of situations where Voldemort and his evil wizards try to conquer the "inferior muggles" only to fail terribly. I remember thinking of one situation where they were frozen in time and emerged to try destroy all muggles in the 40K universe.
You can do it V-man! Go fight that Grey knight! Yeah you can doooooo-----oooh now you are in several pieces...
I was watching one of the movies with my family around when the olympics were on, not sure of the name but they escape a bank or something by freeing a dragon and flying away.
The moment he started flying my first thought was "Wait, the olympics are on arn't they? And they have Anti air missles stationed all over the city? And that dragon is a UFO?" then I burst out laughing and had to leave before I spoiled the film for my family who was enjoying it.
I will admit I love thinking of situations where Voldemort and his evil wizards try to conquer the "inferior muggles" only to fail terribly. I remember thinking of one situation where they were frozen in time and emerged to try destroy all muggles in the 40K universe.
You can do it V-man! Go fight that Grey knight! Yeah you can doooooo-----oooh now you are in several pieces...
As Far as I know Guns do work fine, at least those that don't involve electricity (more than enough scope there if you'll excuse the pun. THe issue with muggle technology in wizarding settlements and buildings especially hogwarts was mostly that the magic interfered with the electricity.
However the argument against magical means to stop a bullet is focused on reactive systems rather than proactive ones, and missing some major issues.
Voldemort only appears in public for certain reasons most of them involving some form of magical violence, in short he's in combat mode. The man is a megalomaniac with clear paranoia issues. He's split his soul in horrific ways to help prevent death, is anyone really so blindingly stupid to think that is the only precaution he may have used to protect himself. Robes magically imbued so that mundane items cannot penetrate them, shield spells against physical objects etc.
Hell the likelihood of him lacking warning is laughably small, apart from his predication for hiding and deception when he not wanting to be seen, all sorts of spells and magical devices exist to warn him of impending danger (note the paranoid evil megalomaniac bit).
There are plenty of plot holes in the Harry Potter books, but the non use of guns is easily explainable using the applications of magic as they exist in the Potter books.
However the argument against magical means to stop a bullet is focused on reactive systems rather than proactive ones, and missing some major issues.
Voldemort only appears in public for certain reasons most of them involving some form of magical violence, in short he's in combat mode. The man is a megalomaniac with clear paranoia issues. He's split his soul in horrific ways to help prevent death, is anyone really so blindingly stupid to think that is the only precaution he may have used to protect himself. Robes magically imbued so that mundane items cannot penetrate them, shield spells against physical objects etc.
Hell the likelihood of him lacking warning is laughably small, apart from his predication for hiding and deception when he not wanting to be seen, all sorts of spells and magical devices exist to warn him of impending danger (note the paranoid evil megalomaniac bit).
There are plenty of plot holes in the Harry Potter books, but the non use of guns is easily explainable using the applications of magic as they exist in the Potter books.