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

[klaynexas3]

SHENANIGANS! I CALL SHENANIGANS!

THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT GUNS ARE!

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.

If I'm not mistaken, America is represented in the Quiditch video game is it not? Then again, is that even Cannon?

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.

 

[Angie7F]

I dunno, but I have a feeling that Voldemort has at least mastered the Matrix move in order to become the powerful dark wizard that he is...

 

[Lilani]

Because wands are a more civilized weapon from a more civilized age.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Also I find it a bit shallow for her to merely claim out-of-canon that Dumbledore is gay but never write in him as EVER having a same-sex partner. If he is gay then he is by all appearances a celibate homosexual, precisely what the gay bashing Christians want. You know they "Jesus accepts homosexuals as long as they never love another man". It just comes off as a publicity stunt, intellectual cowardice and hardly breaking ground. She made this declaration after the famous gay actor Ian McKellen was perfectly cast as another wise old bearded wizard mentor to a young protagonist who's character is killed off mid story: Gandalf. Gee, the character of Gandalf sounds a LOT like Dubledore... coincidence?

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).

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.

 

[Treblaine]

Also I find it a bit shallow for her to merely claim out-of-canon that Dumbledore is gay but never write in him as EVER having a same-sex partner. If he is gay then he is by all appearances a celibate homosexual, precisely what the gay bashing Christians want. You know they "Jesus accepts homosexuals as long as they never love another man". It just comes off as a publicity stunt, intellectual cowardice and hardly breaking ground. She made this declaration after the famous gay actor Ian McKellen was perfectly cast as another wise old bearded wizard mentor to a young protagonist who's character is killed off mid story: Gandalf. Gee, the character of Gandalf sounds a LOT like Dubledore... coincidence?

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).

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."

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]]

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)

 

[Dandark]

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...

 

[Petromir]

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.