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

[Doitpow]

-Muggle aerospace technology can fly faster than the speed of sound at supreme altitudes and is capable of reaching the moon

Apparition

-instantaneous personal communication: smartphones

apparition/head in fire/patronus

-deep research, news, and opinion sources with the internet as well as near endless stream of entertainment

they have reams of scholarly research, and they access it the not-so-old fashioned way of finding it, then reading it, you know, what you were doing 7-10 years ago

has it occurred to you that endless streams of internet entertainment mean precisely dick to someone who can; fly, travel anywhere in the world instantly, conjure fire, battle dragons, breath underwater, wrestle giants, ride unicorns, turn into animals, taunt, torture, maim, become invisible, and so forth
Seriously, thats like asking why The Doctor doesn't watch eastenders.
[/quote]

-Computer and Video games, much more affordable and varied than quiddich

[see above]

-Indications that modern medical science is more advanced than what muggles can achieve

Wizards typically live well over a hundred years, i think muggle medicine can eat it.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Because it would break the series. Whenever you read fiction you have to suspend your disbelief or you will end up spending the entire film/book/game going "No, that won't happen".

Why don't they just poison the shark in Jaws? Why don't the characters in Alien just stick together? Why does no-one in the Blair Witch Project use a phone?

 

[Baneat]

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.

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.

Yes, he brings a DB shotgun with him to the hut on the lake. Hagrid comes in, gets it pointed at. Being a bawss he strides up to it, twists the barrel "As if it was made of rubber" and discards it (In the movie he fires it and the pellets go to the roof.

Guns were also referred to briefly in one point in the books *I can't remember which one, but about 70 pages in* as "Sort of a metal wand muggles use to kill each other".

Guns probably wouldn't work on a wizard as powerful as Voldemort. Not all spells are cast, many are automatically triggered in normal cases of danger - "Ever made anything happen? Maybe when you were sad, scared or angry?" - Hagrid in the Hut on the Lake.

Granted a bullet would be difficult to explain away like this if Voldemort wasn't aware of being fired at and they never explain why wizards are so fucking thick they've never even heard of a gun despite living alongside muggles.

JK Rowling tried to cover this plot hole somewhat, but she doesn't have to go further with it than she did, to be honest, because it's fucking magic.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

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!

Magic can affect just about anything on any level. Magic is the ultimate deus ex machina! He could heat the metal to the point where the user would be forced to drop the gun, or perhaps ignite the gunpowder within the very gun itself. Besides, even if the gun was a magic gun, Voldemort is the most powerful dark wizard so I expect that wouldn't help your cause.

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.

It is mentioned in one of the books that a really powerful wizard can perform magic without uttering any words and some can even do it without a wand. I imagine that even Voldemort would have done his homework regarding guns and just about anything that would be a threat, although I can see him disregarding Muggle tech based on his prejudice as you said.

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.

Only his soul is linked to the horcruxes. His body would indeed die if shot but his soul would remain "alive" until he found another body/host. Harry defeated his body in the Philosopher's Stone but Voldemort still managed to come back at the end of the Triwizard tournament because of the new body Wormtail helped him to create AND he infused it with Harry's blood so that Harry could not hurt him any more. He can adapt to pretty much anything it would seem.

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.

The whole idea of the Harry/Volemort relationship was the fact that Harry would never stoop to killing. In fact it was physically impossible for Harry to kill, he tried to cast Avada kedavra in the Ministry of Magic when Voldemort returned but he wasn't actually evil enough to wield the spell properly. In the final battle he actually defeated Voldemort AND gained the Elder Wand by using nothing more than the disarming spell, Expelliarmus. It would not be in Harry's nature to outright KILL Voldemort and it would undermine the entire story if he did.

I'm not attacking your views, just wanted to put out some counter arguments!

 

[artanis_neravar]

Another good explanation is that the wizarding community just puts too much faith IN magic, believing that technology is really just a thing, a parlor trick (rather ironic mode of thinking that it is). In short, hubris! They live in a world of dragons, hexes, and flying brooms! The comfort and safety of a well-armed fighter jet with machine guns and missles would be lost upon them.

Frankly, I say ole' Tom hates normal people because nothing he's got can amount to "I am death, destroyer of worlds." and never will.

He probably is jealous. "I am death, destroyer of people a few at a time" just isn't that impressive. His favorite spell kills people one by one, though he probably has others that could hit a group of people. But nothing nearly as impressive as a weapon that destroys an entire city, kills many of its inhabitants, and ruins the area for years later.

So the biggest issue you have in a world where elves, dragons, goblins, and griffins exist, people can fly, there are invisibility cloaks, ghosts exist, and magic is used on a daily basis, is that guns don't work in it?

No, the issue is that guns do work but are not even mentioned. No matter how magical your world is, a plothole is a plothole. Unless you're talking about Discworld sort of world, that is, in that case everything can be handwaved as "a wizard did it" or "a historey monk did it" or "the gods did it" or simply "because it's cool".

You know the saying - if the only tool in your story is magic, you tend to forget the existence of everything else. Imagine if in D&D the wizard says "OK, I don't have Levitate memorised today, there is no way we reach that " and everybody agrees...ignoring the fact that a ladder would have still worked just the same.

You want to talk about plot holes? How the hell did the good guys win that final battle when none of them will use the one curse in existence that can actually kill?

 

[J Tyran]

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

Could he cast that spell 14 times a second though?

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Plus your argument nullifys my evidence that she said decoratively that the muggles would win the war.

Yes, she is the absolute creator in her books but she didn't say he was gay in her books, she said this in interviews. It is NOT CANON! She can say whatever she likes in interviews about the books and she can just go against it in a later instalment.

I also think it's pretty fucked up that he'd introduce his gay lover as his biological brother. You can't just assume every relationship he had with males was a homosexual one.

 

[Treblaine]

I used the word lexicon which is a synonym for encyclopaedia or glossary but if you want to make yourself upset about diversity of language feel free?
Anything written by the author (like it or not) is cannon if they deem it to be.
The "behind the scenes" thing I said was an analogue to put such a section into context, but it is very easy to have the creative process documented if you desire. There have been retrospective documentaries sold as complete products also?
The games are free btw the whole Pottermore site will be and should be contain and surpass most of the planned physical book as for as I understand things.

The books are set in the late 90s/Early 2000s when most of the UK was still using dial-up what is accessible and easy about that? Though Riddle's diary mimics a chatroom like interface which was created in the 40s/50s canonically and contains a replica of the creators memory (haven't seen the internet do that yet?) there are other examples i could give but im doing most of this of memory and i dont currently have the books at mine (they are in my mums house)

I have decided that either you yourself grew up in a cupboard under the stairs or just don't want to enjoy anything at all so I'm droppin' the mic here

Lexicon means vocabulary, or at a stretch a book containing all the vocabulary of a language, like a dictionary. Google is right there, use it. I am upset by you lazy bastardisation of this language.

"There have been retrospective documentaries sold as complete products also?"

Yeah, but about things like World War 2, Disasters or other major events. Not one person writing a book. It's self-indulgent waste of money to try to hawk off this glorified interview as something that could be a stand alone piece of media. Maybe for a few pennies on iTunes, but not any large amount of money.

"The books are set in the late 90s/Early 2000s when most of the UK was still using dial-up"

Dial up is FINE for online gaming. Online gaming doesn't need VOLUMES of data, it needs SPEED, or precisely, low-latency. And back then dial-up was arguably with lower latency than we have today. We have been fighting an ongoing battle with service providers who continually sacrifice low-latency for higher throughput.

Riddle's diary is no substitute for an internet chatroom. It was never used that way. Throughout the series the Wizards seem to have huge problems communicating with each other, needing to directly travel to each other rather than use the instantaneous communication we take for granted.

 

[Treblaine]

-Muggle aerospace technology can fly faster than the speed of sound at supreme altitudes and is capable of reaching the moon

Apparition

-instantaneous personal communication: smartphones

apparition/head in fire/patronus

-deep research, news, and opinion sources with the internet as well as near endless stream of entertainment

they have reams of scholarly research, and they access it the not-so-old fashioned way of finding it, then reading it, you know, what you were doing 7-10 years ago

has it occurred to you that endless streams of internet entertainment mean precisely dick to someone who can; fly, travel anywhere in the world instantly, conjure fire, battle dragons, breath underwater, wrestle giants, ride unicorns, turn into animals, taunt, torture, maim, become invisible, and so forth
Seriously, thats like asking why The Doctor doesn't watch eastenders.

-Computer and Video games, much more affordable and varied than quiddich

[see above]

-Indications that modern medical science is more advanced than what muggles can achieve

Wizards typically live well over a hundred years, i think muggle medicine can eat it.

Apparition is no where near as practical as the "muggle" aerospace industry that moves thousands of people around the world every day.

Sticking you head in a fire can't be as convenient as the varied communications options with a mobile phone. Don't give me that "magic stops them working". Figure out HOW magic stops them working and come up with a solution. Enough with this magical mode of thinking of only magical solutions and never understanding the fundamentals.

That's a starting thing about Harry Potter, they use all this magic but he is never taught the fundamentals of how it works. it's as if they just don't care. In a muggle school you'll do your own "magic tricks" in the science lab but the fundamental way they act is explained scientifically, so you know HOW to apply what you have learned.

But in Hogwarts it's just: "it's magic, next!"

This is an extremely medieval way of thinking.

Scholarly research has embraced online publications for even longer than the past decade. No library can rival the databases of an integrated network of journals, continually updated and able to be read simultaneously. Even if you have a paper reference library, the benefits of having a computer reference network is IMMENSE being able to search in depth for the source that you need.

"fly, travel anywhere in the world instantly, conjure fire, battle dragons, breath underwater, wrestle giants, ride unicorns, turn into animals, taunt, torture, maim, become invisible, and so forth"

Most wizards can't and don't do all of those. Only Harry can go invisible with his one cloak.

A muggle could also:

"fly a jet, use their knowledge of fire (flame-throwers), battle armoured vehicles in war, go scuba diving, wrestle World Wrestling giants, ride horses, taunt, torture, hide in a ghillie suit."

I think The Doctor wouldn't watch Eastenders because it is shit. He does seem to show an interest in the more erudite aspects of human culture.

"Wizards typically live well over a hundred years"

Says who? Some out-of-canon comment from Rowling? Then where are the Weasley's grandparents? Or Harry's Grandparents? Or any of the other grandparents? Their conspicuous absence indicates life expectancy is more like the time they are trying to emulate, with an age somewhere around 40 or 50 years old. You see very few old Witches and Wizards in Hogwarts.

 

[Atmos Duality]

These sorts of arguments are flawed on their very premise: An irrational force will trump the rational equivalent every time in a work of fiction because the irrational force is arbitrary while the rational force is limited.

-It's as senseless as arguing whether X from could beat Y from in a fight. Two irrational forces devolve into comparing escalating Deus Ex Machinas until it devolves into "I destroy all that is, has been, and ever will be including you".

-It's as pointless as arguing whether a Sherman Tank could beat a Daishi from Mechwarrior.

A more interesting argument would be "How on earth are these inexperienced children CONSTANTLY out-smarting masters of their craft? Why hasn't Voldemort just taken the Muggle world apart with his magic? He's clearly unkillable due to Plot Armor."

 

[tjarne]

Simple, you dont bring a knife into a wandfight

 

[370999]

Wow I am amazed OP that you care this much. It's child to teen literature nothing more. The reason they don't use guns is that Rowling didn't want to have to deal with the implications of a multitude of questions of the relations between muggle political entities and wizards, between how mundame technology interacts with magic ,etc. I agree it's clumsy but so? Just ignore it or read something else like... ugh... Harry Dresden (God how I dislike that)

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

You guys ARE aware that the books take place in EUROPE right? Shooting him was never much of an option to begin with just because of how hard it would be to get a pistol let alone a high caliber sniper rifle.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Plus your argument nullifys my evidence that she said decoratively that the muggles would win the war.

Yes, she is the absolute creator in her books but she didn't say he was gay in her books, she said this in interviews. It is NOT CANON! She can say whatever she likes in interviews about the books and she can just go against it in a later instalment.

Actually it's Word of God, so it is canon. Also the fact that you never noticed the completely obvious gay undertones with Grindelwald perplexes me.

Really? I'd consider obvious being actual sexual reciprocation with another male like kissing. Some statement of deep and unbridled love and intimate affection. You don't have that.

My point is Rowling is two faced. She benefits hugely in monetary terms from selling Harry Potter books to parts of the world that are violently homophobic but she never actually commits so can keep the high sales. In interviews she can say what she likes to artificially generate praise for progressing gay acceptance. It was a promise she never delivered on.

Canon is canon. The author can say whatever they like but what is actually in the story is what is actually in the story.

 

[Treblaine]

You guys ARE aware that the books take place in EUROPE right? Shooting him was never much of an option to begin with just because of how hard it would be to get a pistol let alone a high caliber sniper rifle.

The books make quite clear the muggle Prime Minister is informed. Why can't he unleash his British SAS forces - the most elite military special forces organisation in the world - to hunt down and destroy Voldemort. They'd gone up against worse odds, and they have every reason to be involved for how Voldemort is attacking muggles.

A handful of SAS have gone head to head with BATTALION sized groups of enemy forces armed with mortars, assault rifles and belt fed machine guns. And driven them off.