the "Why didn't they just shoot Voldemort?" thread

[Lunar Templar]

I'm pretty sure Voldemort knows at least one spell that could stop 3 ounces of lead in mid-air.

probably, but can he pull one off quick enough though?

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!

going off the 'magic system' I'M used to, he (Voldermort) would be FUCKED in a modern setting, as almost all metal disrupts the flow of energy used in magic, even something as small as pocket change, a single coin tossed at the right time could screw a mage over

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.

here's a reason, they're mages, they wouldn't have the 'insight' to think out side the box (magic solutions to magic problems)for likely for raciest reasons, they wouldn't think a 'muggle device' would work, when i fact it would do the job a lot faster. but nope, the mages are all to stuck up to try so they have to do it the hard way,

 

[Wushu Panda]

Okay from the other topic, someone brought up the question about why they didn't just shoot Voldemort.

Granted, this would've been my way of resolving the whole 'dark lord' problem, but that would defeat the purpose of a magical kid saving the magical world. Hell, just to keep the asshole on his toes they could've used a different weapon each time to make sure he didn't know how to counter muggle weapons.

But where would that leave us? In perhaps the longest and repetitive game of hide-and-go-seek.

It also is unsure as to whether or not the bullet would have the intended effect. He is credited with going beyond any other witch or wizard to become immortal. Horcruxes were his ace in the hole, yes, but he took many other unknown precautions as well. Shooting his but-buddies would have worked perfectly and without fail, im sure. Hell, you could probably brandish a gun in front of his followers for several minutes before they knew what to do. At which point you would fill their ass with hollow points.

 

[Treblaine]

You're hopeless. Not only that but you seem to think J.K. promised some sort of gay relationship story when she only revealed Dumbledore as being gay after the 7th book, and she never promised anything.

Of course there's no way to prove they were in a relationship, but there is tons of evidence that points towards them being in love or at least Dumbledore being in love with him. Of course you can completely ignore this like you did above ("Ron and Harry did share deep secrets, but not deep secrets like loving Hermione but of course I don't have a counter argument to that so I'll ignore you saying that lol") and of course you can grasp at straws and deny them being in love, but this isn't just a random opinion, given the facts in the book it reaks of evidence of gay romantic undertones. The fact you can't see it and are basing everything on your opinion just shows how blinded you are.

You'll never accept the possibility of them having a romantic relationship, just like how you'll never accept word of god, because of you for some reason think your opinion overrides facts. I can easily accept the fact they could just be friends, even though the evidence points more towards the gay side of it, whereas you point blank came to a conclusion and are shouting it like it's a fact rather than an opinion.

It's a fact Dumbledore is gay. It's a fact there is evidence pointing towards him and Grindelwald having romantic feelings for each other.

Also just to ask, are you gay?

You're right, It was 2007 I forgot the book came out just before she made her claim, but that is still 3 years before the final film of which she had much control over the script of. She could have clarified something as she did on other matters, but didn't. She waited until the final book to make this claim.

"but there is tons of evidence"

You've yet to give any. I'm not in denial, I have addressed every single one of your baseless points and you arguments you could see through yourself. Ron kept secrets from Harry. So did Grindelwald keep secrets from Dumbledore about his plans. You are guilty of confirmation-bias just to confirm the author's dogma.

"You'll never accept the possibility of them having a romantic relationship"

Strawman. I CAN accept the possibility. What I cannot accept is the False claim that a homosexual relationship was actually depicted. Dumbledore character's sexuality remains blank with a mere footnote of the author's UNDELIVERED intent.

"the evidence points more towards the gay side"

I think you might lack the emotional maturity or maybe just wrong frame of mind at the moment to talk about human romances and relationships.

"Also just to ask, are you gay?"

That's a very odd thing to ask and not really relevant.

And "just to ask" seems like an unnecessary and unconvincing qualifier. In fact it seem far more a rhetorical question that comes off more as an accusation, as if you couldn't care so much about gay rights unless you were a gay yourself. No. I just don't like charlatans.

And if you are immature enough to say "well you didn't deny it, you MUST be gay" then I'll say outright if you are so concerned about this: I am heterosexual. I am a man attracted to women. I've never had any sexual interest in any man.

Bottom line
If Rowling REALLY wanted to write her character as gay, she would have written her character as gay. She didn't. To spite the opportunity, she left it open to make it totally spurious to assume a gay relationship. No more than between Spock and Kirk, Holmes and Watson, House and Wilson, you name any friendship in fiction.

It's utterly WORTHLESS just to say after the fact that he was gay. That is totally meaningless, only of value to gossipy speculators who like to make spurious conclusions. It doesn't do anything to further gay acceptance as she may have intended to claim.

 

[Porygon-2000]

Bottom line
If Rowling REALLY wanted to write her character as gay, she would have written her character as gay. She didn't. To spite the opportunity, she left it open to make it totally spurious to assume a gay relationship. No more than between Spock and Kirk, Holmes and Watson, House and Wilson, you name any friendship in fiction.

It's utterly WORTHLESS just to say after the fact that he was gay. That is totally meaningless, only of value to gossipy speculators who like to make spurious conclusions. It doesn't do anything to further gay acceptance as she may have intended to claim.

Actually, I reckon I wasn't too bad in that regard. The fact that is was thrown in as a quip by the author, that "Oh by the way, he's gay" sort of exposition, emphasised how irrelevant it was to the character. Because, sometimes, a person's sexuality doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to motivation or intent (no doubt I am going to get a wave of Freudian backlash over that). As a gay guy,I found that the idea, that a person is not necessarily defined by who they enjoy getting naughty with, refreshing. I would prefer it if more narratives made sexuality a non-issue, rather than have it at the forefront of everything.

Although, on a more related matter, I just reckon the magical people are all just condescending dickheads, are culturally (and, in some cases, biologically) stagnant, and really not much better than the rest of us at all. If Voldy ever looked beyond the wizarding world, to see just what he was up against, he may reconsider the whole "Open domination of every muggle on the planet" strategy, lest he suffer an unfortunate case of cranial decompression - seven times over.

 

[Treblaine]

Bottom line
If Rowling REALLY wanted to write her character as gay, she would have written her character as gay. She didn't. To spite the opportunity, she left it open to make it totally spurious to assume a gay relationship. No more than between Spock and Kirk, Holmes and Watson, House and Wilson, you name any friendship in fiction.

It's utterly WORTHLESS just to say after the fact that he was gay. That is totally meaningless, only of value to gossipy speculators who like to make spurious conclusions. It doesn't do anything to further gay acceptance as she may have intended to claim.

Actually, I reckon I wasn't too bad in that regard. The fact that is was thrown in as a quip by the author, that "Oh by the way, he's gay" sort of exposition, emphasised how irrelevant it was to the character. Because, sometimes, a person's sexuality doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to motivation or intent (no doubt I am going to get a wave of Freudian backlash over that). As a gay guy, I found that the idea, that a person is not necessarily defined by who they enjoy getting naughty with, refreshing. I would prefer it if more narratives made sexuality a non-issue, rather than have it at the forefront of everything.

Although, on a more related matter, I just reckon the magical people are all just condescending dickheads, are culturally (and, in some cases, biologically) stagnant, and really not much better than the rest of us at all. If Voldy ever looked beyond the wizarding world, to see just what he was up against, he may reconsider the whole "Open domination of every muggle on the planet" strategy, lest he suffer an unfortunate case of cranial decompression - seven times over.

Well it was an opportunity for an actual gay relationship to be shown, otherwise it's meaningless fluff to say that he's gay, there is no weight or relevance to it. It doesn't give the character the decency of having full breadth of human emotions which would extend to needing that special someone in their lives for them to be intimate with.

There is so much to SAY about this, such as how the wizarding world would view homosexuality as they do seem to be very much stuck in the past, remember right up until the 1960's Britain homosexuality was a criminal offence that could have you imprisoned and worse. Alan Turing, UK's master code breaker and father of modern computing, was convicted of homosexuality, chemically castrated and driven to suicide where he was ostracised even in death.

It's a totally natural variation to be gay. The commentary is to be on DEMONSTRATING that with an actual relationship in the stories. Also a commentary on how much of society prejudicially asserts it is not natural and not to be tolerated to spite how benign it is.

 

[Veylon]

I suppose I'm late to the party and a dim-witted Harry Potter fan to boot, but I'll give it a shot.

1. Muggle technology doesn't work around magic.
I don't see any particular reason guns wouldn't work. Wizards use chemicals. Wizards use machinery. Even if the gunpowder itself (for whatever reason) wouldn't go off, it shouldn't be all that hard for some enterprising alchemist to gin up an alternative. I was under the impression that it was more along the lines that electronics didn't work, as we see the wizards use plenty of moving gears and such.

2. Voldemort would just be able to stop the bullet with magic
Sure, he could do that. I don't doubt there are protective spells that could repel gunfire. He might think to if no one in the wizarding world has shot off a gun in ages, though. I don't know if whatever spells they normally use for physical protection are heavy duty enough to do for bullets. They might have to do some inventing.

3. Voldemort will keep regenerating until the horcruxes are destroyed
This is the reason no one wants to go after him directly, gun or no gun. I'm a bit hazy on the details of how he doesn't die. If he could just be trapped and repeatedly shot down, they'd do it, even if they were using wands or crossbow or swords or whatever. In the first few books he's a spirit, so I'm going to assume that the worst anyone could do to him is make him go through the process of getting animated again. Once the horcruxes are gone, though, he's as vulnerable as anyone else.

Also, I'm not sure how "alive" Voldemort is even after his reincarnation. Does he physically have organs like normal people? Or is he some sort of homogenous flesh golem held together with dark magic?

4. If they did that there wouldn't be a story.
True enough. A quick and easy doing-in of Voldemort is ontologically impossible.

Another thing I'd like to add is that the wands are effectively pistols with unlimited ammo. Essentially, they are already using guns, with higher level spells being the equivalent of rocket launchers or artillery. For the purposes of killing, guns don't really offer anything they don't already have.

Except sniper rifles. Most of the magic is either close and personal (magic wands), distant and indirect (big firestorms and such), or far away, individual, and slow (curses). A weapon that individually and instantly kills from very far away looks to be outside the realms of magic.

 

[J Tyran]

totally agree with OP. there should have been technomages in harry potter but i guess that ex-homeless woman of a writer never read a sci-fi novel her entire liff.

A steampunk/harry potter world hybrid would be pretty awesome.

 

[370999]

Right this is my last reply to this as I feel it's an issue that neither you nor I will ever agree on.

I don't think Dumbledore's sexuality would be shoehorned. In principal the ground work is laid by the casting of Ian McKellan as Gandalf, who is openly gay and has been involved in gay activism, it's not like that combination is totally unthinkable for people. It would be a great opportunity to subvert the old-wise-mentor archetype who has traditionally been single and a paragon of the alpha-male. This could challenge the common depictions of homosexuality as a flamboyant and/or weak character.

I didn't get across my point properly. It was that it it's current form I find Rowling saying Dumbledore to be gay to be just something she made up on the spot to sound enlightened, i.e it didn't feel planned to me but something that was retroactively inserted for purposes beyond the literary, similar to how you feel from the impression i got from your above post.

I believe it's more than a clumsy attempt, she talks fondly and whimsically of this segregation. The popular character Hagrid is given the line that Wizards keep themselves secret so they don't have to solve their problems... as if famine, disease and war are petty problems muggles are just too lazy to fix themselves... when the wizards LITERALLY have a magic cure for it all. It's insultingly naive in what it proposes.

I would certainly agree that it is a tad insulting but I never thought the intent was to advertise the wonders of segregation but instead to simply having a magical fantasy series. Again though isolationism has been argued for by individuals in history and I am certain some individuals here would support the notion that the current hyper power should intervene less.

What I'm trying to get across is that segregation is different from isolation. The wizarding world can and has the ability to completely separate from the muggle world, which means it is entirely possible for the

And this is not some shitty B-movie where the few who watch laugh at it. Harry Potter is a BILLION DOLLAR series that MILLIONS of people absolutely adore and and inspired by. People dress up and imitate these characters. These ideas that the protagonists support, sympathetic characters we are supposed to relate to, these ideas can rub off

You seem to be getting perilously close to suggesting the concept of banning books due to unpalatable content which is something I am completely against.

Her work may not be homophobic but it kowtows to homophobia for greed and self interest. It's a squandered opportunity to do something to quash the homophobia that seems to be built into all of us and that we should grow out of, though many don't. It's especially prevalent in pubescence, when sexual distinctions begin being made, homosexuality can very easily seem dangerous and people react negatively.

I don't find it homophobic in any form. I also don't find the idea that she didn't devote her books to "quash the homophobia" to be an argument against it. She also didn't devote a lot of her book to railing against bad corporate practices, the surveillance state, the destruction of the environment, etc. Because not every book has to be or even should have the express purpose of enhancing someone's conscious of some societal ill.

 

[mega48man]

you know what? i was just about to type a long argument, counter argument, and rebutle as to why harry should have shot volde, and then it hit me;

Spoiler: you ready? ok, get ready

[HEADING=1]FIREARMS ARE ILLEGAL IN ENGLAND[/HEADING]​

i felt so stupid for not realizing it sooner

 

[StBishop]

OP, The actual reason is because Harry has to destroy the Horcruxes to make Voldemort Mortal, If he'd done all the same shit including

Spoiler

dying

then just shot Voldemort rather than duelling him, it would have worked, but thematically within the structure of the book it would have been less interesting and seemed cheap and disingenuous.

you know what? i was just about to type a long argument, counter argument, and rebutle as to why harry should have shot volde, and then it hit me;

Spoiler: you ready? ok, get ready

[HEADING=1]FIREARMS ARE ILLEGAL IN ENGLAND[/HEADING]​

i felt so stupid for not realizing it sooner

Hogwarts is in Scotland.

Umadbro.jpeg

 

[gyroscopeboy]

You know what would be awesome? A book series where wizards are dying out because they havent evolved with the rest of humanity and are being slaughtered for being different...Im writing it!

 

[Treblaine]

I believe it's more than a clumsy attempt, she talks fondly and whimsically of this segregation. The popular character Hagrid is given the line that Wizards keep themselves secret so they don't have to solve their problems... as if famine, disease and war are petty problems muggles are just too lazy to fix themselves... when the wizards LITERALLY have a magic cure for it all. It's insultingly naive in what it proposes.

I would certainly agree that it is a tad insulting but I never thought the intent was to advertise the wonders of segregation but instead to simply having a magical fantasy series. Again though isolationism has been argued for by individuals in history and I am certain some individuals here would support the notion that the current hyper power should intervene less.

What I'm trying to get across is that segregation is different from isolation. The wizarding world can and has the ability to completely separate from the muggle world, which means it is entirely possible for the

And this is not some shitty B-movie where the few who watch laugh at it. Harry Potter is a BILLION DOLLAR series that MILLIONS of people absolutely adore and and inspired by. People dress up and imitate these characters. These ideas that the protagonists support, sympathetic characters we are supposed to relate to, these ideas can rub off

You seem to be getting perilously close to suggesting the concept of banning books due to unpalatable content which is something I am completely against.

Her work may not be homophobic but it kowtows to homophobia for greed and self interest. It's a squandered opportunity to do something to quash the homophobia that seems to be built into all of us and that we should grow out of, though many don't. It's especially prevalent in pubescence, when sexual distinctions begin being made, homosexuality can very easily seem dangerous and people react negatively.

I don't find it homophobic in any form. I also don't find the idea that she didn't devote her books to "quash the homophobia" to be an argument against it. She also didn't devote a lot of her book to railing against bad corporate practices, the surveillance state, the destruction of the environment, etc. Because not every book has to be or even should have the express purpose of enhancing someone's conscious of some societal ill.

Isolationism is distinct from segregationism as a matter of geography. Countries separated by mountains and seas that don't go to the effort of making ports and paths are isolationists. Two communities that live directly next to each other and even within each other yet forbid mingling and fair exchange, that's segregation. The exercised power to deliberately separate is segregation. Isolationism is simply NOT using your power to overcome natural obstacles to connect people.

If Rowling wanted isolationism rather than segregation, then she should have written that the wizarding world was in Parallel dimension or some other location that meant it was always a huge effort for any wizard to break into the muggle world (like open a portal). But she didn't. Part of the appeal is this is a secret world that Harry discovers he can enter only because he has the "right blood".

"You seem to be getting perilously close to suggesting the concept of banning books due to unpalatable content which is something I am completely against."

Not at all. YOU however seem to be resorting to hyperbole for fallacy. To take my literary criticism as an endorsement of fascist-like censorship of banning literature betrays your own prejudice. Yes, only fascists would ban something like Harry Potter. I never called for anything like that, and I'm INSULTED at the baseless suggestion! I'm not even saying people shouldn't ever read Harry Potter (small children), I'm just saying adults should recognise these books for the negative ideas they propose.

I don't want to ban the bible either, I'm just going to encourage people not to take it seriously and to recognise the negative things it proposes.

I say: "Her work may not be homophobic"
You say: "I don't find it homophobic in any form."

You are arguing in agreement! I am alleging intellectual dishonesty and greed. It's like if she said Harry was a communist yet always showed him in favour of capitalism and never took any stance against capitalist business practices. That is my issue.

 

[Treblaine]

you know what? i was just about to type a long argument, counter argument, and rebutle as to why harry should have shot volde, and then it hit me;

[HEADING=1]FIREARMS ARE ILLEGAL IN ENGLAND[/HEADING]​

i felt so stupid for not realizing it sooner

Murder is also illegal... somehow that doesn't stop Voldemort

Also, Three letters: S A S

Yes, the Special Air Services, arguably the best special forces organisation in the world. They have guns and they know how to use them. The muggle Prime Minister was informed and Rowling has said over and over again that Hogwarts is in the UK just muggles can somehow never find it, so the UK government has jurisdiction here and they can certainly use guns. Wizard can lead them there and set up a killzone of sniper fire.

 

[Rylingo]

Then why does even Voldemort verbalise every spell he casts?

He doesn't. There a few times he goes for direct thought. Off the top of my head, when he merges his body with Harrys at the end of book 5.

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.

Backfire was a bad word. Often when spells fail they don't do the reverse, they just cause a small explosion injuring the caster. Neville's did this constantly in the earlier books until his spell casting improved in the later books.

The problem with JDAMs is the Voldermourt still hangs around in unplottable areas most of the time. This will completely screw the GPS on those.
I think by far the biggest danger to him is a wizard, sniper pairing. 5 snipers, 5 wizards split into pairs. The sniper blasts voldermourt whilst the wizard can repel his dementor entourage or remove muggle warding off charms which would distract the snipers. You'd still need to know his position though.

What about casting a killing spell over hundreds of feet, which is some zappy something that kills people bloodlessly. Voldemort obviously couldn't do that as when outside the besieged Hogwarts he didn't cast the Killing curse over that distance.

Bellatrix in the 5th book stated that the unforgiveable curses need a lot more power (Harry failed to torture her). The reason why the death eaters don't all constantly use the killing curse is because it probably tires them a little. Im just spitballing here but the reason voldey didn't fire the killing curse from that distance might not be to do with his accuracy rather wasting his energy when he knew he might have to spend several hours dueling other wizards. But...I can't be sure.

And don't doubt the power of a .308 hollow point to the centre mass, it'll blow a hole the size of a bowling ball and the shockwave through the body will be like as if every inch of their flesh has been hit by Mike Tyson's strongest punch all at the same moment. It will deliver a fatal blow and even if it doesn't kill instantly you'll be utterly disoriented by the shock of the impact, your ribs flying apart and slamming back together.

Sniping would be the preferred muggle way of killing him. I never doubted that. If Voldey was extremely disoriented after having a massive chunk of his torso removed he wouldn't be able to heal quick enough before taking another shot. If (a big if), he maintained enough presence to attempt to teleport out, the difficulty in doing Apparating would very likely end with him being splinched(torn in half) by it. If (another big if) he did manage to cast the killing curse chances are he wouldn't hit his target and even if he did, he wouldn't have enough energy to follow up with anything else to save hims own life.

This "mere inconvenience" is worth it. The SAS could get this shit sorted out VERY quickly. They've deal with worse guys than Voldemort on weekend operations.

No they haven't. Voldermourts main danger isn't his outright battling strength more his legilimency and imperio (mind control). If Voldermourt struck first he could destabilise society. He could destabilise the inner workings of the SAS. All it would take would be for him to read the mind of a higher member of government. Gain some names of SAS members. Take control of them. Use them to take control of others. Order them to assassinate the other members etc. No trust. No support.
Not that the SAS has always had a great record. Things didn't work so well with them in Northern Ireland for them.

Rowling has created a "wonderful whimsical world" that seems to be permanently set in the dark ages of pre-enlightenment claptrap. Harry is never taught about evolution nor so many of the other fundamental aspects of our world.

As long as Hermione is around him, he'll be fine:

Whereas aircraft is statistically the safest way to travel and practical en mass. Yet Wizards are too bloody proud to use muggle technology... is Voldemort REALLY such an elitist extremist relative to this community? Or is he tilling RIPE ground of prejudice with the luddite wizarding community? Even the Weasleys.

Apparition isn't the only way to travel instantaneously travel. Port keys are safe as is the flu network unless you mess up the name. Its worth it for that speed of travel.

There is also the cases where Wizarding World's magical powers could save MILLIONS of muggle lives with ease, yet they don't. Jerks.

Pretty much.

 

[Treblaine]

Epic snip, click through please

Hmm, wizard-warrior and muggle-infantry combination. Nice idea.

I'm also sure there must be a muggle solution to imperio. I think definitely if they worked WITH the wizarding folk they could find a solution, the physical mode that imperio works, maybe some mental conditioning, implant or even a special veil to block the influence. This would be a great way to defeat a divisive force such as Voldemort... with unity.

Voldemort's legitimacy is also something SAS has dealt with before, fighting against warlords who have large local and armed support.

I'm still not a fan of port keys. If I mispronounce a name when ordering a flight they don't accidentally kick me out of a plane in the mid-atlantic.


EDIT: Your idea that the Killing Curse takes a significant amount of finite personal "energy" to deliver, seemingly geometrically worse over distance is discouraging for magic. And this is apparently the only explicitly lethal spell in this wizarding world.

With a belt fed machine gun any competent person with reasonable training can fire hundreds-of-bullet per minute, continuously for hours on end, killing people up to 10'000 feet away.

And that was the state of "muggle" firearm technology... over 100 years ago...

Today such weapons are hand held, cheap and controllable.

There is also the cases where Wizarding World's magical powers could save MILLIONS of muggle lives with ease, yet they don't. Jerks.

Pretty much.

Yeah, and to me that has loomed over the series for me.

 

[Treblaine]

Another thing I'd like to add is that the wands are effectively pistols with unlimited ammo. Essentially, they are already using guns, with higher level spells being the equivalent of rocket launchers or artillery. For the purposes of killing, guns don't really offer anything they don't already have.

Except sniper rifles. Most of the magic is either close and personal (magic wands), distant and indirect (big firestorms and such), or far away, individual, and slow (curses). A weapon that individually and instantly kills from very far away looks to be outside the realms of magic.

[HEADING=1]FIREARMS ARE ILLEGAL IN ENGLAND[/HEADING]​

Real fridge logic [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic] moment here: This poses an interesting legal dilemma, as in England (and Scotland where Hogwarts is located) not only are all firearms illegal but all "offensive weapons" are illegal. It is illegal to own a knife that is "designed for harm" except for those item of prior historical interest, and of course exceptions for government (military).

But aren't wands offensive weapons?

What would some gun-banning politician think if they knew TWELVE YEAR OLDS were being given devices that with the right magic could absolutely and utterly kill people? You could argue a child isn't capable of that... but if a "muggle" child is capable of learning Pi to a thousand digits, or compose musical symphonies, I don't think we should make assumptions of what none of them are possibly capable of.

But even adults, UK abhors the idea of people wandering around with a weapon. Yet that is precisely what witches and wizards do.

So not only do this unrepresentative group practice apartheid, also scorn muggle ways but feel they are the only ones to be armed. Sounds pretty bad when you put it that way and the only way to make that look good is to distort it by omission of details.

 

[mega48man]

you know what? i was just about to type a long argument, counter argument, and rebutle as to why harry should have shot volde, and then it hit me;

[HEADING=1]FIREARMS ARE ILLEGAL IN ENGLAND[/HEADING]​

i felt so stupid for not realizing it sooner

Murder is also illegal... somehow that doesn't stop Voldemort

Also, Three letters: S A S

Yes, the Special Air Services, arguably the best special forces organisation in the world. They have guns and they know how to use them. The muggle Prime Minister was informed and Rowling has said over and over again that Hogwarts is in the UK just muggles can somehow never find it, so the UK government has jurisdiction here and they can certainly use guns. Wizard can lead them there and set up a killzone of sniper fire.

T_T

Price: ghost, do you read me?
ghost: load and clear, soap and i and ready
price: voldemort is the prize. keep low and follow my lead
soap: so what's with these wizards? there's no telling what they can do
ghost: right, we gotta hit 'em quietly and fast
price: aye. HOLD UP, one group up ahead, let them pass
...
price: ok drop 'em

PFT PFT PFFTPFT PFT

soap: tangos down
price: wolcroft, held me hide the bodies. soap, you and ghost get yourselves to the next wing
ghost: next corridor, go go go!
price: place C4 charges under that bridge for when they come out of the forest
soap: aye, the'll never know what hit 'em



as kick ass as it sounds, we're not talking about a full scale bag n' tag sweep like in every kick ass British level of Modern warfare, we're talking about a citizen purchasing a weapon. to send in the SAS (whom i'm assuming are all muggles) would be to break the biggest rules of the magic world;

#1. no muggles can see wizards use magic, that was the whole point of platform 9 3/4 and ron's invisble car, which then snap snapped at them for getting nearly caught.
#2. no muggle related interfering with the wizardry world, that's the prime minister's director order.

now let me remind you, firearms are not permitted for sale in the UK under law, no one can buy one. there is no rights to bear arms, no army surplus, and probably a very small black market, they're are not tolerated what so ever. MI5 can carry them though, but their super secret spies and stuff. now harry, ron, and hermione are not super secret MI5 spies, they are british citizens...actually, just harry is. hermione erased herself from the real world and ron grew up in the wizardry world. so they cannot buy a gun unless they traveled to america to buy one then traveled all the way back to hogwrats, and voldemort would of killed everyone by then.

 

[mega48man]

Another thing I'd like to add is that the wands are effectively pistols with unlimited ammo. Essentially, they are already using guns, with higher level spells being the equivalent of rocket launchers or artillery. For the purposes of killing, guns don't really offer anything they don't already have.

Except sniper rifles. Most of the magic is either close and personal (magic wands), distant and indirect (big firestorms and such), or far away, individual, and slow (curses). A weapon that individually and instantly kills from very far away looks to be outside the realms of magic.

[HEADING=1]FIREARMS ARE ILLEGAL IN ENGLAND[/HEADING]​

Real fridge logic [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic] moment here: This poses an interesting legal dilemma, as in England (and Scotland where Hogwarts is located) not only are all firearms illegal but all "offensive weapons" are illegal. It is illegal to own a knife that is "designed for harm" except for those item of prior historical interest, and of course exceptions for government (military).

But aren't wands offensive weapons?

What would some gun-banning politician think if they knew TWELVE YEAR OLDS were being given devices that with the right magic could absolutely and utterly kill people? You could argue a child isn't capable of that... but if a "muggle" child is capable of learning Pi to a thousand digits, or compose musical symphonies, I don't think we should make assumptions of what none of them are possibly capable of.

But even adults, UK abhors the idea of people wandering around with a weapon. Yet that is precisely what witches and wizards do.

So not only do this unrepresentative group practice apartheid, also scorn muggle ways but feel they are the only ones to be armed. Sounds pretty bad when you put it that way and the only way to make that look good is to distort it by omission of details.

parliment and the ministry of magic have separate jurdistictions over their realms. wands are used for everyday things, like putting a star on a christmas tree or opening up a secret appartment complex, banning wands because people can use them to kill is like taking away fast food restaurants because the food gives a few people heart attacks, it's a matter of necessary discretion.

imagine everyone in the world had a gun, but guns were used as back scrachers, getting things in high places, cleaning, putting in light bulbs, ordinary things (it sounds so silly!) but no one knew about bullets than go in them, except for a certain bald headed terrorist and his lackeys, who carried many bullets and used them on people. now instead of banning the thing people need every day, the government bans the bullets instead.

like wise, the ministry of magic has made it clear by law that the use of the 3 unforgivable spells (the ones mentioned in the 4th book) are illegal to use. ban the spells, not the spell casting device.

 

[blackrave]

About regeneration
Could Voldemort regenerate his head after encounter with 50.cal
I don't think so
Some people don't realize how much kinetic power high caliber rounds actually have
Even if bullet misses and goes NEXT to the neck, blastwave will simply rip apart blood vessels (potentially lethal injury)
So with right ammunition and good shooter there will be no head left at all
Regenerate this!