In the first book, I'm pretty sure the uncle of harry has a long shaped package that turns out to be a hunting rifle, pretty sure it's featured in the movie aswell.UsefulPlayer 1 said:Its a fantasy world. Guns don't exist in that world.
Find me one reference in the books to the existence of guns and I'll take back what I said.
"But its based on our world!"
Ok, let me know where the flying dragons are in our world.
Btw his snake had a constant protective shell around it. I can't imagine why he can't do the same for himself.
They never actually say. I would assume all of them.Treblaine said:Yeah, but WHICH spells can you cast without saying incantations?
Using words and wands help focus the spells. Those with poor self-control over their minds or active imaginations, like Harry struggle. Hermione is the only one the kids able to use nonverbal spells easily. It tends to be only used by more powerful witches and wizards. The spells have the possibility of backfiring should they be performed wrong.Treblaine said:If you can do this for all spells then why is it not done for all spells?
Spells like the post sending spells(in the ministry) work over long distances. In book 1 Snape and Quirrel were struggling to control Harry's broom from a distance. Control of an object from, say half a football pitches length away is shown.Treblaine said:And where in the books HAVE you actually seen a spell cast against an individual (not an area) over several miles? Many times throughout the series the protagonists or enemies are very far away and spells are not cast but rather a pursuit begins.
I don't think anyone is doubting the speed of bullets Treblaine. Its everything that comes before the bullet is fired. The risk of being caught out by legilimens. The chances of Voldey just chilling out in clear view of snipers who somehow have learned his position beforehand. Voldermourts spies would know that the Ministry of Magic is in cahoots with government. Voldermourt could then simply stay away from plottable areas.Treblaine said:Are Wizards now by some unwritten rule also superhuman in their mental capacity to identify a bullet speeding through the air at 2'500 kilometres per hour and then deploy a spell against it? Also their dexterity to aim that their wands don't need aiming sights?
Because its an easy spell to cock up. It is considered dangerous to use in crowded areas incase you teleport into someone, killing them. If you mess up the spell yourself you risk the danger of ripping yourself in half.Treblaine said:Wizard teleportation is rare and the commonly available magic is only from point to point as Weaselys' Diagon-Ally glitch. Why is it Wizards use other forms of transport if teleportation really was as easy and common as you describe?
Yeah, you got the bubble head charm right. It does seem to reduce the effect of pressure as well. The bubblehead charm does, have an obvious time limit due to its nature. The Flagration charm can create heat but I'd say itd be difficult to use without damaging the bubblehead charm. The bluebell flame charm (used commonly by Hermione) can burn with no fuel creating heat to for anything above it (yet not to its sides at all). Could work if you placed stayed on a broom and floated over it creating flames as you go. Gonna be difficult though.Treblaine said:PS: if Wizard did teleport to the moon and use a Bubblehead charm (that I assume contains the air molecules around their head) their chest would explode from the necessary air pressure in their lungs. If the bubble was extended around their body even then they would be screwed as their body and this small pocket of air would soon freeze to 3-degrees above absolute zero. So cold that the nitrogen in their air around them would turn to liquid.
The radiation could be tricky. Im not sure how easily you could keep it off.Treblaine said:And if that doesn't get them the solar radiation will. Even if protected from all that This bubble they'd soon suffocate as the CO2 they exhale would quickly build up... it would be like putting a plastic bag over your head, you'd die quickly. See you actually have to STOP AND THINK rather than just say "hurr, magic solves it". You'd have to cast a dozen different spells, OR you could wear one space suit designed for the job.
M'kay. Well if you ever get tired of hating someone else's work because they don't cater to your personal opinions on, well, everything, feel free to do better on your own. But make haste: the world awaits with baited breath.Treblaine said:*Snip*
UsefulPlayer 1 said:Its a fantasy world. Guns don't exist in that world.
Find me one reference in the books to the existence of guns and I'll take back what I said.
"But its based on our world!"
Ok, let me know where the flying dragons are in our world.
Btw his snake had a constant protective shell around it. I can't imagine why he can't do the same for himself.
Not once did you use the word encyclopaedia, thought Rowling continues to. Any book she writes summarising Harry Potter lore is worthless as it cannot be bound to canon, she could release a new book that contradicts anything in there. Wiki summarises the lore as described in books and how that is relevant to the film adaptations.siddif said:If you want the wiki version there is Pottermore the official interactive site run by JKR and Sony which is soon to open to the public. Its not just a lexicon of things in the books its also behind the scenes look at how the books were made and the creative process behind that including scrapped chapters, interactive games, etc?. Though when the books themselves arent due to change in content and all of the films are out a hard copy book can also be good. I dont see it as a cop out though as behind the scenes documentaries or biographies are seen as full products so why cant this book?
Harry hasnt interacted with the wizard internet thing because he is in class/fighting evil wizards/hitchhiking around Britain and when not doing that hes in a muggle household with less than basic rights.
Then why does even Voldemort verbalise every spell he casts? And are you saying a non-verbal spell requires concentration and if disturbed or distracted it may not work or "backfire"? How would a "repell bullets" spell backfire? Suck the bullets into his cranium? This is hugely impractical, it's easy to aim a gun. You can drop a baker's dozen of JDAMs from 60'000 feet and realise Voldemort probably doesn't even realise what this technology is.Rylingo said:They never actually say. I would assume all of them.Treblaine said:Yeah, but WHICH spells can you cast without saying incantations?
Using words and wands help focus the spells. Those with poor self-control over their minds or active imaginations, like Harry struggle. Hermione is the only one the kids able to use nonverbal spells easily. It tends to be only used by more powerful witches and wizards. The spells have the possibility of backfiring should they be performed wrong.Treblaine said:If you can do this for all spells then why is it not done for all spells?
Spells like the post sending spells(in the ministry) work over long distances. In book 1 Snape and Quirrel were struggling to control Harry's broom from a distance. Control of an object from, say half a football pitches length away is shown.Treblaine said:And where in the books HAVE you actually seen a spell cast against an individual (not an area) over several miles? Many times throughout the series the protagonists or enemies are very far away and spells are not cast but rather a pursuit begins.
Attacking from distance? Estimating that would be speculation on my part really (hence "probably" in my last post).
I don't think anyone is doubting the speed of bullets Treblaine. Its everything that comes before the bullet is fired. The risk of being caught out by legilimens. The chances of Voldey just chilling out in clear view of snipers who somehow have learned his position beforehand. Voldermourts spies would know that the Ministry of Magic is in cahoots with government. Voldermourt could then simply stay away from plottable areas.Treblaine said:Are Wizards now by some unwritten rule also superhuman in their mental capacity to identify a bullet speeding through the air at 2'500 kilometres per hour and then deploy a spell against it? Also their dexterity to aim that their wands don't need aiming sights?
And even should the bullet strike it isn't necessarily a killshot. Unless it's an extremely large bullet directly to the head. And should you kill voldermourt this way, yes it would inconvenience him a lot but he could regain a new body.
As for the aiming thing, I don't think the wizards are going to hold straight up shoot offs against snipers. It would be tactical suicide. I would add that spells are wider than bullets which would help with range. The size, shape and speed of spell seems to vary based on the type.
Because its an easy spell to cock up. It is considered dangerous to use in crowded areas incase you teleport into someone, killing them. If you mess up the spell yourself you risk the danger of ripping yourself in half.Treblaine said:Wizard teleportation is rare and the commonly available magic is only from point to point as Weaselys' Diagon-Ally glitch. Why is it Wizards use other forms of transport if teleportation really was as easy and common as you describe?
Yeah, you got the bubble head charm right. It does seem to reduce the effect of pressure as well. The bubblehead charm does, have an obvious time limit due to its nature. The Flagration charm can create heat but I'd say itd be difficult to use without damaging the bubblehead charm. The bluebell flame charm (used commonly by Hermione) can burn with no fuel creating heat to for anything above it (yet not to its sides at all). Could work if you placed stayed on a broom and floated over it creating flames as you go. Gonna be difficult though.Treblaine said:PS: if Wizard did teleport to the moon and use a Bubblehead charm (that I assume contains the air molecules around their head) their chest would explode from the necessary air pressure in their lungs. If the bubble was extended around their body even then they would be screwed as their body and this small pocket of air would soon freeze to 3-degrees above absolute zero. So cold that the nitrogen in their air around them would turn to liquid.
The radiation could be tricky. Im not sure how easily you could keep it off.Treblaine said:And if that doesn't get them the solar radiation will. Even if protected from all that This bubble they'd soon suffocate as the CO2 they exhale would quickly build up... it would be like putting a plastic bag over your head, you'd die quickly. See you actually have to STOP AND THINK rather than just say "hurr, magic solves it". You'd have to cast a dozen different spells, OR you could wear one space suit designed for the job.
So you could spend months training to cast the correct spells. Or you could spend years training to be an astronaut?
It was in the fourth book where Harry mentions to Ron and Hermione that he saw Draco crouched outside talking to his cupped hands and that he thinks it was a bug. Confusing Ron he explains it to him only for Hermione to counter that electronics do not work around Hogwarts due to its uniquely high concentrations of magic surrounding it. Also in another comment you mention that the sonic boom a bullet produces would give someone some warning which is impossible since the sound moves slower than the bullet but then you implied you know that, that has me confused.DoPo said:Smiley Face said:I'm making a conjecture as to what sort of reason might be given by someone defending that point, I'm not necessarily endorsing it. I'm pretty sure they've mentioned Muggle Tech as not functioning around magic, but I'm pretty sure that was limited to electronics. That said, it's not a far stretch to imagine that a volatile and unstable force that distorts the otherwise known laws of physics might, you know, distort the laws of physics.DoPo said:Where has this been mentioned ever? I have no recollection of anybody explaining it in the Harry Potter's universe. In Harry Dresden's universe, however that is true. But that is a different one.Smiley Face said:First is that, for whatever reason, the various mechanical and chemical processes that go into firing a gun don't quite take in high-magic areas, so it doesn't work for whatever reason.
But again, I'm just throwing conjecture as to what someone might say the reason was - and frankly, even if that was the case, I don't see how they could say something like a crossbow wouldn't work. That, and if the chemical processes that go into firing a gun would malfunction, the chemical processes that the human body constantly undergoes would definitely malfunction - Muggles would be exploding left and right.
In other words, you made that up. If it's not mentioned, nor hinted at, I could even say that bullets would be instantly fatal to wizards because MAGIC.
Also, other people have pointed out - electronics don't work around lots of wizards, not wizards in general. And that's is if we assume it's magic that screws them up. I can't remember at the moment, and I don't have the books to reference, but I don't think it was well explained why the whatever device that didn't work in Hogwards (was it a camera?), didn't work in Hogwards. It could have been a spell that prevented electronics from functioning.
At any rate, I keep mentioning that there are more tools than guns that could have been useful. None of them are used.
Oh, suddenly this is all personal? After I made VERY CLEAR that this is NOT personal with how I outline how Rowling is screwing with young people's minds, leaving them open to exploitation by charlatans such as Creationists who are all to happy to foist magical origins of the universe?SnakeoilSage said:M'kay. Well if you ever get tired of hating someone else's work because they don't cater to your personal opinions on, well, everything, feel free to do better on your own. But make haste: the world awaits with baited breath.Treblaine said:*Snip*
Dude, good writing doesn't insult your intelligence. Asking why they didn't shoot Voldemort is a legitment question that is never really properly explained... something that could of been done away with...Troublesome Lagomorph said:You do realize that that applies to nearly all fiction? That's why its fiction... it punches gritty reality and extreme logic in the balls and makes entertaining shit up. If you don't like it, avoid any kind of fantasy like the plague, for your sake.SaneAmongInsane said:4. NO! I freaking hate this response, because all it is trying to cover up how poor the story really is. Hey, I get a kick out the series, but this is a glaring serious plot hole. The whole reason the stakes are high is because the magic world assumes that unless Harry stops volde the muggles wouldn't stand a chance... Truth of the matter is, and JK Rowling said so herself, that in a straight up war with the magical realm the muggles would win. We have vastly superior technology and armor, not to mention numbers.
On this, I'll disagree. She created a universe, she's the "God" of that universe. If she says Dumbledore likes the cock, then Dumbledore always liked the cock. Is it exploitative? No. Because now you can go back and anytime Dumbledore says "This is my old friend" you know that is code for he took it in the ass.Treblaine said:Oh, suddenly this is all personal? After I made VERY CLEAR that this is NOT personal with how I outline how Rowling is screwing with young people's minds, leaving them open to exploitation by charlatans such as Creationists who are all to happy to foist magical origins of the universe?SnakeoilSage said:M'kay. Well if you ever get tired of hating someone else's work because they don't cater to your personal opinions on, well, everything, feel free to do better on your own. But make haste: the world awaits with baited breath.Treblaine said:*Snip*
No no no no. You can't turn this around that easy. I'm saying that reading Harry Potter makes people stupid, in the sense they are conditioned to see magical, un-testable and unpredictable solutions to real world problems and that science can be discarded when convenient. That's not my personal problem, that's a problem for all society. Magic should be for very small children who can't comprehend the whole world in all it's complexity. It's easier to explain the Tooth Fairy than dental development.
Kids over 11 shouldn't read Harry Potter. At least not without a very critical perspective of how the writing is unreasonably contrived in use of arbitrary magical solutions.
And yeah I AM going to call out Rowling on this Dumbledore stunt, she WAS exploitative. She DID benefit from free press and praise for progressing gay acceptance then completely failed to deliver, killing off Dumbledore with no mention to him having any kind of lover, gay or straight. She wants it both ways, and that's intellectually dishonest. She can still sell her books in countries which are hugely prejudicial against gays as it mentions no gay character... yet reaps the rewards of being progressive only by declaration.
I've got other stupidity-inducing and exploitative works to cover but they aren't exactly relevant:
The Da Vinci Code, the central plot element being that "the Christian world will be torn apart by proof that the New Testament is not PRECISELY true" Oh give me a FUCKING BREAK! Acting as if there has NEVER been any evidence to contradict the Bible's infallibility? And they're just looking for a freaking document about Jesus whose life was very poorly documented if he even existed at all. Creationists have been shit talking about evolutions for over a century and it's reached a fever pitch now, so much of the bible is absolute nonsense as demonstrated by science, Dan Brown paints such a false picture of religion's place in the world.
And Angels and Demons, the idea that the "deep dark secret" of the Catholic Church was the pope jacked off in a test tube for artificial insemination... how about how the Catholic Church - including the current pope - directly, deliberately and repeatedly covered up horrific sex crimes committed by their priests? And did so for decades, intimidating the victims to silence and even allowing the priests to go on victimising? It's like setting a film in 1945 Germany and the dark secret of Nazis is not that they've been gassing millions of people but that Hitler had an affair with a Jewish woman.
This is not my personal taste getting in the way. My personal taste dislikes Justin Beiber, but really he doesn't distort any fundamental perceptions of reality or impede free thought nor exploit people's confidence like I've listed above so I don't have any more to say about him and have never joined in on the Bieber hate.
No more about Dan Brown as really he doesn't have anything to do with this thread. But Harry Potter and JK Rowling DO. And I'll say what negative influence they have, rightly and relevantly.
Rylingo said:So you could spend months training to cast the correct spells. Or you could spend years training to be an astronaut?
Troublesome Lagomorph said:You do realize that that applies to nearly all fiction? That's why its fiction... it punches gritty reality and extreme logic in the balls and makes entertaining shit up. If you don't like it, avoid any kind of fantasy like the plague, for your sake.
1. Most wizards wouldn't know how to use a gun, since they always rely on magic, and they don't trust muggle technology, since most of it doesn't work.SaneAmongInsane said:Okay from the other topic, someone brought up the question about why they didn't just shoot Voldemort. Now I use to watch these movies with my ex and drive her up the wall with all my questions cause really a LOT of what the magic community does doesn't make sense and is overly pretentios, but this question I investigated in earnest.
Arguments the dim-witted harry potter fan gives as to why the gun wouldn't work...
1. Muggle technology doesn't work around magic.
2. Voldemort would just be able to stop the bullet with magic
3. Voldemort will keep regenerating until the horcruxes are destroyed
4. If they did that there wouldn't be a story.
well... heres my counter argument,
1. You tell me some sort of electronic device doesn't work, I get it. Theres no telling what a magical aura could do to electricity. However a gun is mechanical and chemical. I have to assume if a pully and rope can work in Harry's universe a revolver would work to. Maybe you could argue that the gun powder wouldn't combust... But an obvious solution to that would be just use the wizard-chemical-equalvelent of gun power. Then you got yourself a magic gun!
2. Bullshit. First off, most of the spells require either saying a two syllable word and making a motion with the wand and I doubt Volde could do that against a bullet. Secondly, Voldemort being the racist that he is wouldn't know what a gun is/does if he saw one so he wouldn't have anyway of anticipating the impending bullet.
3. So Voldemort comes back... Just keep shooting everytime he resurrects. It's not like it's instantaneous, and you could probably do it several times before he actually could come up with an effective counter... and even then, just have hermione snipe him from across the pond. The time granted (instead of being wasted fighting him with magic) would be invaluable in finding the remain horcruxes.
4. NO! I freaking hate this response, because all it is trying to cover up how poor the story really is. Hey, I get a kick out the series, but this is a glaring serious plot hole. The whole reason the stakes are high is because the magic world assumes that unless Harry stops volde the muggles wouldn't stand a chance... Truth of the matter is, and JK Rowling said so herself, that in a straight up war with the magical realm the muggles would win. We have vastly superior technology and armor, not to mention numbers.
The only reason, the only GOOD reason why they didn't shoot Voldemort is because Harry just plain didn't think of doing it... and seeing as how both he and hermione both came from the muggle world and never once even lampshaded it I see is a major flaw in the whole series.