There is a lot of debate as to whether or not a gun is ultimately the better weapon compared to a wand. I think that while Voldemort himself of course could not have been killed with a gun because his soul was split up or whatever, the average wizard could not beat someone with a gun in a 1v1 fight. You would have to have inhuman reaction times in order to turn the bullet into a flower or put up a shield or something.
However, in some sort of all-out wizards vs. muggles war, it is clear to me that wizards would win. There is simply no way to counter a force that can teleport anywhere at any time, turn invisible, and mind control their opponents. Furthermore things like tanks and missiles could be magicked away since they're slow, unlike a quick draw sort of fight against one other opponent with a gun.
if wizards were smart guns would be useless but wizards seem to be dumb as shit and incapable of innovation. you dont see any harry potter wizard surrounding themselves with layered spells. then they just spam the same spell over and over. theyve got all these magic tools cough time travel and dont abuse the shit out of them.
Austin Scott
I left out time travel since that would obviously be OP, but there are no clear rules for how exactly it could work since Rowling is kind of a hack.
Aiden Mitchell
My impression from the books were that wizard were essentially unkillable, except for magic. Ex. They're fire proof.
Justin Harris
So unkillable they had to go into hiding because muggles were assraping them out of existence
Carter Rodriguez
What makes you think that?
Robert Fisher
I would imagine wizards probably learn some kind of shield spell to protect themselves around muggle weapons. Plus, wizards would usually have the element of surprise and be able to just disarm/obliviate the gunslinger, or just teleport the fuck away.
The real answer is that Rowling is a hack and just didn't think that through, though.
Jaxson Powell
>Hermione: "DOES HE LOOK LIKE A BITCH?"
Xavier Watson
missiles are fast as fuck what are you on
Nicholas Robinson
ok then.
think of how bad-ass a gun a wizard could make.
Levi Ortiz
Why don't they make magic guns with magic bullets? They can make their shit disappear but not that?
Easton Barnes
1 squad of operators would swoop into Hogwarts on Christmas Day and wipe out everyone. No survivors.
Christian Campbell
Seeing as they have enchanted brooms, rugs, maps, trains and even swords, I don't see why not.
Most people are gone Christmas day and how would they even find the castle?
Evan Gray
>Most people are gone Christmas day not if the bridge is out. they'd take out the bridge. >and how would they even find the castle? GPS
Liam Butler
Her nudes were disappointing
David Harris
Muggle tech doesn't work around Hogwarts and non magic people can't even find it, and what bridge? All the kids and alot of the teachers use the Floo Network to go home, or the train on Christmas Holiday
Lincoln Rivera
Well she was harvested
Ryder Flores
Would be on google maps innit. Can't magic all the way up there
Grayson Nguyen
I'll be desu with you: I haven't watched this show or read the books but I am certain it would only take 6 elite units to wipe out a school full of magic kids and professors. As the Marines say, "Achievement Unlocked"
Lincoln Nguyen
Allout wizard war.
Snipers would take out the leaders and most powerful. None of them are really combat trained. Even the aurors or whatever the fucked are only trained to fight other faggot wizards.
what is the limit of technology? Example - people still eat food, and it digests, people gain energy from it. Will thermite work in hogwarts? what about a bic lighter? A bic lighter and a gun are basically the same thing
2. what about technology sent from outside the field and inside - like if we dropped a bomb on hogwarts, would it just be a kenetic drop or would it blow that shit up.
3. how powerful are wizards against kenetic blows? if DJT decided "FUCK ENGLAND THEY NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR 1776" and started having the navy railgun the shit out of hogwarts, would the shells just randomly miss? would they be completely invisible?
BONUS - what about american wizards and witches? I mean, as a pro trump jew, i know there will be at least one pro trump wizard who poofs into the WH to say "yo dude, wizards are a thing, lets fuck up those limey cuntlicks"
and what about those anti magical things? Can we put those things in bullets?
Anthony Richardson
Why didn't the "wizards" just shoot the author, so they could prevent the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises? Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books were good though
"No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
They theoretically could but I think there are rules by the Ministry of Magic against enchanting Muggle technology. Like you can do shit like make pots and pans clean themselves and I think one time in the books Hermione does a thing where she enchants needles to knit by themselves, but I guess the rule mostly applies to more complicated Muggle-only stuff. I forget if they touched on it in the movie but apparently Ron's dad sort of got in shit for the flying car, I think it also goes more into detail about how he's obsessed with Muggle stuff and enchants a lot of it even though it's not allowed.
Hunter Cruz
*nukes hogwarts* ok w*zard
Oliver Bailey
The Punisher could infiltrate, hunt down and wipe out every last one of them with only a hunting knife and a machine gun.
Aiden Clark
Imagine if wizards adopted some muggle things like how the Jedi adopted armor and stuff during the Clone Wars.
Jordan Campbell
*teleports nuke into ur anus* muggles...
Nicholas Cooper
She fills out those jeans so well.
Dominic Bennett
>There is a lot of debate as to whether or not a gun is ultimately the better weapon compared to a wand. Well whatever side of the ontological argument debate you fall on and given its many corollary questions and arguments (is existence a predicate? Does this predicate make one greater than non existence? Etc.) I'm sure most sane people would argue guns are better because they're fucking real.
