Harry Potter Muggle Weapons / Headscratchers

Harry Potter headscratchers relating to wizards and Muggle weaponry. Please add new entries at the bottom.

For a specific book, please go to its specific page:

In a hypothetical scenario where a muggle or squib is aware of magic and are trapped in a dangerous, life-threatening scenario, if there's a wand nearby and they grab it in an attempt to protect themselves or someone they care about, will: 1) nothing happen? 2) the wand release whatever leftover energy is stored up in a disastrous and uncontrolled manner? or 3) the wand make a conscious decision to either improve the situation with the little magic it has or to make the situation worse depending on its feelings with regards to the person holding it? Essentially, how sapient is a wand, and how much control does a wand possess with regards to what it does whilst being weilded by certain people?
- There doesn't seem to be any reason I can think of to believe it would do anything in that scenario. Wands by themselves rarely, if ever, perform magic, but rather operate as channels for the natural magic inherent within the wizard or witch that holds it. Muggles and squibs are characterized by the lack of this magic; as a result they cannot use magic, dangerous situation or otherwise.
Given that they're in hiding throughout the last book since their main enemy has taken over the government, why don't either of the Muggle-raised main characters (Harry or Hermione) realize just how good an idea getting a lethal weapon that doesn't require pure hatred to use would be? Such as, say, a gun. An old, cheap, easy-to-acquire (in the right places) AK-47 has a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute and an effective range of 300 meters. This easily outpaces any wand and out-ranges most (if not all) of the magic that we've seen. And it operates on purely mechanical principles, so the magical wizard plot field of inconvenience shouldn't have any effect. A handful of people armed with these and trained in basic marksmanship could have eliminated Voldy and any of his cronies before they'd even realized they were under attack. And they're way too arrogant and self-superior to ever do any research into Muggle weapons, even if they're getting killed by them. It would undermine everything they believe in if Voldy came to the next monthly Death Eater meeting and announced, "It turns out that magic is of remarkably little use when one is too full of bullets to cast it. Also, one killing curse every few seconds has nothing on a rate of fire of ten bullets per second, each plenty lethal. Therefore, we are looking into defenses against these weapons, and are arming ourselves with them. Starting now."
- What stops them is that neither Harry or Hermione have ever had the slightest amount of training in how to use firearms, have nowhere they can go to get such training, and that they have enough common sense to figure out that the proper description for people who go out intending to get into gunfights without ever having trained to use guns is "idiots". There's a reason that firearms instructors tell people applying for concealed-carry permits that if they don't intend to put proper effort into learning how to use them, they should not carry them.
- Not having any formal training in how to use firearms has NEVER stopped anyone engaging in irregular/guerrilla warfare. Even with the safety issue at hand, the advantages of using guns on pure-blood Deatheaters who don't have them, don't know what they are, and have never seen a gun before in their lives far outweigh the risks, considering that this is a life and death conflict.
- Jesus Christ, are you people still pushing this line? If a burst of accidental magic can save Neville from a three story fall why exactly would a firearm be unstoppable? Better yet, if a simple cooling charm can negate the effects of temperatures exceeding 2900 F (1600 C) and a first year levitation charm can stop something falling with a force exceeding 10k Newtons why exactly would magic be "useless?" If life obeyed the laws of a horror movie you'd die in the first act. Have some common sense.
- Wait, what make you think people on guerrilla warfare do not have proper training? even irregular forces take the effort to train their members precisely because not doing so will cause a lot of deaths from friendly fire.
- The books are set in the UK. Firearms are not easy to get in the UK.
"Too fast reflexes"? "Harder to kill and more resilient"? "Spontaneous magic"? Ok, let's assume they're all true. It doesn't change anything. The Trio can acquire/create some explosives, then set a trap with Harry as bait, maybe in an old castle, a cave or the like. Then, just detonate the bomb and drop 200K tons of rock on him. Also mage seems able to transmutate object via magic. So: just transmute the air around V into concrete, blocking his jaw. He's buried deep, can't cast a spell and you didn't use any of those bad, bad firearms... Also, if he comes back to life due to Horcruxes, he'll still be buried.
- It's hard to spring a trap on a teleporting enemy. As for the Transfigured concrete idea, if you're close enough to Voldemort to do that, you're already dead. Besides, he could counter the Transfiguration, or *Reducto* the concrete, or Disapparate.
- Actually, its fairly easy to spring a trap on a teleporting enemy if you can either a) guarantee surprise or b) know where he's going to teleport to. Apparition takes deliberate concentration to use so its useless if you don't know something is going to explode before it does, and in book 7 at least they had a reliable way to guarantee that an enemy would teleport into a chosen spot — say "Voldemort" out loud. (Admittedly, you don't know exactly where they're going to bamf in, at least not to the foot, but you can narrow the area down enough that a decent land mine would cover it.)
- Amusingly, you don't even need bombs. Stand on top of something tall and very narrow, with room enough for only one person to stand, like a telephone pole. (As to how you get up there? You're a wizard. Use a broom or teleport yourself.) Say "Voldemort". They teleport in next to you... and fall twenty feet to the ground and break their legs. While they're busy being distracted from the pain, zap them with your wand. Even if the magic can detect whether or not you're in mid-air (which is why I didn't suggest using this trick while 1000 feet in the air on a broom), you are standing on something solid — its just the guy five feet to one side that isn't.
- I'm sure in a magical society a thousand years old that that one has been tried before. Probably as a prank at Hogwarts too. However, even if it hasn't been tried then that works for a couple of times until you get someone who apparates back out quickly enough. Even with the land mines that only works a couple of times, because even Voldemort is bright enough to realize that people aren't coming back and investigate. Every clever trick comes with its own solution.
- Besides, from the books and movies is clear that saying Voldemort do not make the Death Eater appear a few meters from the person that spoke, it make you know that in certain area someone said the name, thus you can apparate in that area and search for them. Is not like you hear the word "Voldermort", disappear from wherever you are, re-appear in the middle of the air and then fall to your death Whiley Coyote style (assuming also a wizard can not use one of the many possible spells to avoid death by falling).
Yes, it has been mentioned many times on the main Headscratchers page that one prepared Muggle with a firearm can probably overpower one wizard. But then you must think about what a wizard can do. The strength of magic is not in pure offensive power and killing things, it is more subtle than that. A competent wizard can disappear in thin air and reappear anywhere he chooses, he can modify people's memory, he can turn things invisible, and he can create something bigger on the inside on command, and if he wants to be sadistic, he can rip every bone out of someone without spilling a drop of blood. So yes, a Muggle can probably defeat one unprepared wizard (assuming the unlikely situation where he can find and corner a wizard in the first place), but then that hapless Muggle will have to fight the aforementioned wizard's seriously pissed-off friends; when your opponents regularly fool around with the laws of reality itself, guess who's gonna win?
Maybe, but he's got to stand in place to kill you. Also, claymore mines.
I always imagine a gun vs wand fight a bit like an ordinary gun vs gun duel (and let's face it, wand vs wand duels aren't too different from that either). The one who aims better and faster wins. The end. The only difference is that you have more options (and also, painless/bloodless options) with a wand.
That's the point: the wizard has more options. Aiming better and faster doesn't matter if your opponent gets behind you by the time you pull the trigger. Or transforms your gun into a kitten, or a poisonous snake, or a hail of knives. Or just makes you forget why you're pointing a weapon at the nice person with a stick. And that's not even counting the involuntary magic that might kick in at just that moment.
The arguments against either side using a gun are BS.
- Guns are hard to get in England FOR THE LAW ABIDING. Criminals don't have nearly as much trouble. And even then, WIZARDS. They could hop a broom or a portkey or a floo or whatever to another country with more lax gun laws—- or just to the nearest black market—- load up and come back.
- When someone yells "Draw, pilgrim", "Click, Bang" is always faster than "wave wand, say silly words".
- Nowhere, not even once, is a magic shield shown deflecting a bullet. In fact, they're shown only partially effective against far less powerful impacts.
  - Just because it hasn't been shown doesn't mean it isn't impossible. A wizard can just set up a stronger magic shield. Or hell, just teleport before the bullet reaches them. They also have billions of other options to choose from.
- Even the most paranoid wizards don't keep shields up 24-7. Or are even capable of it.
- Even ignoring hand guns, shot guns, machine guns, grenades, etc., a man with a rifle and a scope can put a bullet between your eyes from over a mile away. The effective range of magic spells is little more than a hundred feet. Night unkillable or not, one sniper in a Hogwarts tower could have ruined Voldemort's whole day, to say nothing of all his non-horcruxed-up followers. You would have to limit the defending forces to muzzle loading blunderbusses to give the attacking wizards a shot in hell; doubly so if the riflemen had a couple of wizards on their own side.
- Values Dissonance again. To Brits, a sniper in a Hogwarts tower is bad. It is evil. It is Family-Unfriendly Violence to the Nth degree. Several of the points in the book are about the 'good' side descending to the same sort of tactics used by Voldemort; sniper in a tower would be exactly that. Yeah, it would work, but at the cost of making a load of kids think Harry's just turned into Voldemort... Even the British Army's recruitment ads use euphemisms for the job (Snipers 'take out key enemy targets').
Wizards have invisibility. If you can't see someone you can't shoot them, but said wizard can basically teleport to your location, kill you then do the same thing to your friends. Assuming both sides are in equal number and are aware that the other wants to shoot them, wizards win every time by virtue of invisibility and teleportation alone.
- You get a lot more energy falling hundreds of feet than getting shot; bullets are only effective because they are relatively sharp and thus have a lot of pressure. Also, technology doesn't work near Hogwarts. Finally, Hagrid said a car crash (more energy than a bullet) COULDN'T kill Lily/James, not DIDN'T. "How could a car crash kill Lily an' James? It's an outrage!" I am not buying a gunman bringing down D Es. Especially since, even if one managed to somehow subvert a wizard's superior toughness, unconscious magic and Hogwarts' tech-destroying aura, would not a prudent Death eater simply cast a Shield Charm to save themselves when they heard fire? Oh, and they could heal each other.
  - The problem with that is that bullets move at supersonic speeds. If one is flying towards you, you'll be dead before you hear the bang. As for being able to heal yourself using magic, its highly unlikely that you'll be able to do it if you're being hit with multiple shots at once. Survival can also hinge on what kind of ammo is being used and at what range. Some gunshot wounds can be recovered from. Others will rip through your internal organs like a knife through butter.
  - Pretty much. The element of surprise and wizards' ignorance on what firearms are are the biggest advantages : unless they have superhuman reflexes they'd need a few seconds before realising they're under attack and Joe didn't just fall down because he tripped and cast Protego, hopefully at which point the shooter would have had time to take down two or three. After that though it's probably be easy win for the wizards.
Actually besides the arguments on where they could possibly get a gun and learn how to use it I don't think that's it's a stretch that Harry and Hermione who've built their entire lives around their identity as a wizard and witch might not even be capable of considering the use of a gun at all. Well Harry is more likely since he's thought of things like walkie-talkies and aqualungs, but all of Hermione's solutions revolve around how skilled and creative she is with magic.
It's really very simple: Voldemort had Horcruxes. Horcruxes are damn near impossible to destroy, only destroyed in the story by a sword and fang with the power to kill anything and an immensely powerful spell. Needless to say, a gun wouldn't do the trick. If they shot Voldemort, he would just live on in a Horcrux. Besides, Harry and his friends were hunting Horcruxes, not Voldemort. They wouldn't bother getting guns because they wouldn't use them.
- That still doesn't make sense because they're still in direct danger from the Death Eaters.
The Trio don't use guns because in Britain only bad guys use guns. If you want to show someone being a nasty piece of work, then they get given a gun. Americans can chalk it up to Values Dissonance, but guns=bad here, especially in children's works. So no sleek, steel, murder-death devices for heroes.
When they finally got to Voldemort, they were at Hogwarts, where the "magic in the air" would have messed with the gun. A gun wouldn't destroy a Horcrux either, because it needs to be put past magical repair. And lastly, it's not just Shield Charms that can stop bullets. There's also a simple household spell known as an UNBREAKABLE CHARM, aka instant bulletproof armor.
- Hogwarts' magical aura is specifically said to screw up ELECTRONICS; most guns aren't electronic. Hogwarts doesn't disrupt all mechanical devices (they still have working door latches), nor does it disrupt chemical reactions (for example, it's shown that, unless enchanted otherwise, even magically-created fire still needs oxygen to burn) so there's literally no reason given for a non-electric firearm not to work. As for Unbreakable Charms, they likely have a limit to their effectiveness. Otherwise, why didn't Voldemort just use them on his Horcruxes?
- He might have, only the intense magical power they were subjected to be destroyed, ie basilisk venom, overcame it. Bullets, however, have no magical power, therefore they'd just bounce off.
- Wow so only electronics won't work near Hogwarts. I mean it's not like that'd mean no radios or air support. Not like that means Muggles would have to charge in blind with no means of getting evacuated out or getting more support. My gosh those silly wizards who can fuck with the laws of physics won't stand a chance.
  - So? Air support isn't going to do anyone good in an indoor castle, anyway. Plus, it won't be the first time an army had charged in a place fully expecting to die but doing it regardless because their country needs it (Ahem, Russia, anyone?). We Have Reserves indeed.
Invisible spell> go to an army barracks and steal guns. Invisible spell > go to the barracks when Drill Sergeant Nasty teaches the new recruits which end of a gun is the pointy bit. Silence spell > go to the firing range and practice. Occulmens spell> change the channel, so instead of Dark Lord Broadcasting Network, they watch MythBusters and fall in love with the minigun, 1000 rounds a minute, cartridge cases akimbo. Riddle has horcrux, if you kill him once, he will rise again. If you kill him seven times, he is dead.
- Why stop at a minigun? If you're breaking onto a military base to steal weapons, why not go nuts? If the average Death Eater is able to cast a shield charm fast enough and strong enough to survive a 81mm mortar round, I say they deserve to win.
Because it's a book about wizards. Wizards don't shoot each other with guns. What's so hard to understand about that? On an even simpler lever, stories need to have a beginning, a middle, and an end. In the beginning, the man character has flaws and is presented with some challenge that he cannot meet. In the middle, he grows, changes, learns, or meets people. In the end the main character uses what he has learned or otherwise obtained to overcome his challenge. "Obtain gun; shoot Voldemort" does not satisfy this very simple structure.
- "In the middle, he grows, changes, learns, or meets people". Right, and countless innocents get tortured and murdered along the way! But I guess it's Ok, if it makes for a good reading, right?
- What, you just now noticed that's how a lot of adventure stories go?
- "In the middle, he grows, changes, learns, or meets people". Because a wizard learning that magic isn't always the best solution doesn't count as learning and growing? I take it you've never seen Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood.
- It isn't that their *should* be guns in Harry Potter. But there needs to be a really good reason given in canon as to why they are not being used. Values dissonance on guns aside, Harry Potter is fighting a literal WAR against Voldemort, and guns really come in handy for that.
- The issue is that it still doesn't come in handy, no one has ever give a good argument yet on how guns can win over wizards' magic, most of the scenarios were wizards are defeated by gun power were already debunked. And take into account that movies and TV make people think aiming a target during a battle is easy and that most of the time you hit the target, in real life even profesionally trained soldiers miss most of their shots and the target is not a supernaturally enhance human.
Taking a different tack: The whole "wizards can do X, Y, and Z to a gun before it could be fired" thing falls apart pretty quickly:
- How many Death Eaters would be familiar enough with a firearm to neutralize one before they caught lead?
- How many Death Eaters get perforated before countermeasures (other than "find cover" and "hope they miss") are developed?
- How many Death Eaters still get whacked out of sheer Pureblood arrogance that a Muggle weapon could do them in?
- To sum up: Yes Wizards can do any number of things to a shooter, but how many would and could before they got shot and how many get shot before they learn to do "X, Y, and Z?"
In response to the above post, I am absolutely certain that a Muggle with a gun could defeat a wizard with magic under certain circumstances, and it could go the other way too. If the wizard knew beforehand about the fight, they could prepare the necessary defensive spells. If they failed to do this, the Muggle could win. Still, there are two reasons why I feel guns weren't used.
- It's set in Britain and written by a British author. Rowling probably didn't have guns in mind nearly as much as an American would, and Harry and Hermione, being British, might not think of guns as quickly as an American would, especially since they do have means of long range combat already. This thread is full of excellent, excellent points, and if Harry Potter were set in America and written by an American, guns would have been deployed early and often. But this simply isn't the case.
- Or in Russia. Or in France. Or in Germany. Or in Japan. Or anywhere on this globe. Because it's not just about those three prats - it's about none of the "good guys" ever thinking about it.
- Why would they think about it? They've been exposed to the magical world for so long that the idea of using Muggle weapons probably wouldn't even occur to them.
- As someone else mentioned, holding an AK-47 doesn't mean you know how to use it. The trio could easily acquire a gun if they decided to, of that I'm confident. But the idea of Ron using it is simply hilarious (his mom didn't even know how the mail works, for crying out loud), well, hilarious until he holds it backwards and shoots himself. Hermione and Harry would have enough common sense not to do that, but they still wouldn't be very efficient with guns. Now, if only there were American wizards...
- And on another note, having underaged characters and guns inside a school is just full of Unfortunate Implications and uncomfortable reminders about school shootings. The moral guardians would howl for blood.
- So don't have underaged characters and guns inside a school - have aged and professional characters with guns inside a school. You know, people who were trained to use those guns and would have no problem obtaining them. People who would have all the reasons to stand against V and his horde and avenge countless casualties inflicted by them.
Okay, so there's been a lot of debate over why wizards don't use guns. But I have to ask, if magic is better than guns, WHY ON EARTH DOES GODRIC GRYFFINDOR HAVE A SWORD? Goblin steel or not, there's nothing a sword can do that a spell can't do better. Pulling it out of the Sorting Hat is little more than a party trick when everyone always keeps their wands on them, and it doesn't have the ability to destroy Horcruxes until Chamber of Secrets. It doesn't seem like a very useful weapon compared to guns, let alone wands.
- Pottermore says that he used it when interacting with Muggles, as pulling a wand on a sword-wielding opponent was considered dishonourable.
- Do we have any evidence he used it as a weapon? It may have just been a ceremonial sword, to flaunt his awesomeness. Plus, he'd still have his wand. He could probably enchant his sword to shoot lightning or something.
Ok So I'm going to throw in my two cents and hopefully we can form a consensus of why guns wouldn't be used. First of all these are British kids two of whom lived in a culture where firearms are banned and seen as terrible things only used by the Military, the boldest of criminals and the occasional farmer. The third is a backwoods pureblood who probably doesn't have any understanding of what guns really are or what they are capable of. I wouldn't be surprised if when Ron hears the word gun he thinks of an Arquebus rather than an AR-15. So it is extremely unlikely that they would even think to acquire a firearm of any type because they just never think of them other than in the context of those things that non-magical bad guys sometimes use. And even if they do say "Hey whipping out a handgun and popping Bellatrix in the face would be a nasty surprise" it should be noted that any firearm they could acquire and conceal is not the kind of firearm you can use without a considerable amount of time spent practicing. Time much better spent hunting for Horcruxes than at the range especially when they are already proficient and familiar with their wands. Sure they could have broken into a SWAT armory and stolen some sidearms but that wouldn't really benefit them in any reasonable way. As for why they didn't pop into the Prime Minister's office and ask for military assistance it's entirely possible (and probable) that they assumed they would be arrested and detained for a time before the Prime Minister decided to hear them out during which time they would have been extremely vulnerable. All this said I would like to see a Fan Fiction where one of those blue notification balls flies into the PM's office and explains that there has been a coup at the Ministry of Magic (something I imagine didn't actually happen in the book or film verses) and the Ministry of Magic gets stormed and recaptured by the Royal Marines and the SAS fifteen minutes after the trio escapes. Preferably with some Aurer support to deal with the dementers who are the only thing I can think of that would give significant problems to a commando raid using flashbangs, teargas and assault rifles.
- The world does not begin or end with those three. Of course, it shouldn't be about them aquiring guns - they indeed lack training. Neither does it have to be about them personally "popping up" anywhere, although for the love of Khorne allmerciful I cannot imagine where did you get that "arrested and detained" idea (why would they do it, if PM already knows about the wiz world? On what charges would they arrest them? How would they even keep them arrested?) No, it should be about wizards enlisting help from non-wizes. In general. As one society from another, when they both share a common enemy.
- "although for the love of Khorne allmerciful I cannot imagine where did you get that "arrested and detained" idea (why would they do it, if PM already knows about the wiz world? On what charges would they arrest them? How would they even keep them arrested?)"
- Well how about breaking into his office or home? Anything short of that and they would just be ignored by the Prime Minister or thrown out of the building by security as just a bunch of crazies.
- Riiiiight. People appear out of thin air in your office, claim that they are wizards, whom you know actually exist (because your secretary is one of them), and that they need your help, so naturally you have them arrested. I thought non-wizes being dumb as rock was part of Death Eater propaganda.
- It's not about intelligence its about a couple of crazy kids breaking into your fucking office. I don't care how well aware the head of state is they are going to freak out and try to detain them for at least a while.
- Noooo, it's about people appearing out of thin air in your fucking office, preferably when you are alone, and saying they are wizards whom you know exist, so you have no reason to freak out. See the subtle difference? It would have to be planned, you know. Thought over. Arranged. Like they did in HBP and everything went fine every time. And again, it shouldn't have been the kids in the first place. It should've been Shackebolt, or Dumbledore, or Arthur, or I don't really care who exactly, that's technicalities. But the idea should've at least been entertained. Don't tell me they didn't know what the non-wizes were capable of, that's not even funny.
- Someone suddenly appearing in your office gives you EVERY reason to freak out. The Prime Minister is exposed to a minimum of magic and magical folks, enough to get him used to the idea of a hidden magical community and have someone he can communicate with. If he understood that the people who teleported into his office are wizards, why on Earth would he completely drop his guard? Are wizards supposed to be 100% nice and friendly? If someone that he wasn't familiar with showed up, he'd quite predictably panic and call for security because he has no idea who's there or what their purpose is. The idea that he'd just go "Oh, wizards? Well, that's fine! What do you need?" is supremely naive.
- Because heads of Government and those responsible for their security are widely known to never take it seriously when people enter the premises unannounced and in an unexpected manner and if I burst through your wall and tried to calmly explain that its okay because I'm a troper and need your help posting youtube video's on our forums you wouldn't be surprised and react to someone suddenly being somewhere they shouldn't be. Aside from the fact that its a terrible idea it should also be considered that, while the Ministry of Magic has some relationship to the Non-Magical government and that this is occasionally reported in the Papers, the Trio doesn't know how much the Muggle government knows. Does the British government know about Voldemort and his magi-nazi beliefs? As far as we can tell from the books (as the movies don't even touch on this) all the Trio knows is that the Muggle government is at least vaguely aware of the existence of wizards and that the Minister of Magic had to tell the Prime Minister about Sirius Black when he escaped. As far as they are aware all that got said was "Hey we have a psychotic wizard running loose, you should watch out for him." Harry and Hermoine may very well believe they will shatter the secrecy of the Wizarding world and start a three-sided war. Ron doesn't think of it because he doesn't know anything.
- It. Is. Not. About. Those. Three. Brats. Do you somehow keep selectivey missing that part? Of course, it's not their business to negotiate something as grand as the abolition of the Masquerade and provision of military aid. The Order and/or DD should've done it. You know, adults. It is, however, the Trio's business, as a focus of reader's attention, to inquire why the hell it hadn't been done. And what do you mean by a "three-sided war"?
- YES. IT. IS. Harry Potter is the story of "those three brats."
- So? What, just because they are the protagonists, no other character is allowed to participate in the cause and do something crucial? My point was that even if this particular task was out of their league, it was well within the capacity of their friends and allies, so I see no reason why it couldn't be undertaken from the in-universe point of view. Meta-arguments should not be used in this section, because, of course, the default answer to all the questions here is that "that's the way she decided to write the story'', but it's pointless and offers no useful insight into the story and characters.
- There's a lot of speculation here. If the story is told from the Trio perspective, how do you know that DD or the Order or any of the adults did not went into the PM office and did all the things you say they should? You have no way to know that, because Harry, Hermione and Ron were not present nor they have a reason to be present. You are just assuming that non of the adults took a more pro-active role while dealing with the British government because is never shown on camera/paper but is an asumption.
- (Third party here) So... to sum things up: the root of the problem here seems to be that the story revolves around three people that really have no business being in the thick of the action. Sure, Harry in particular has a connection with Voldemort, but that doesn't make him the most qualified to be the main character. But alas, the structure of the story demands that a trio of children/teenagers be the heroes, so most of the adults end up looking ineffectual, and sometimes outright malicious. From a meta standpoint, it can be brushed aside; in-universe, it makes you wonder what the hell kind of system the Wizarding World is running on.
- It's much worse, actually and it cannot be brushed aside. Even if I concede that only the protagonists can be effective and write off the remaining cast as useless NPCs (which contradicts the story itself, btw, since the extras do fight in the final battle) this changes nothing. I'm sorry, but the excuses given above why they ostensibly couldn't do this themselves, are completely ridiculous. Come on! These kids undertake all manners of insane endeavors, they infiltrate two enemy strongholds in a row, risking their very lives, and yet they would hesitate to approach the non-wiz authorities solely out of fear of being disbelived or detained by non-wiz security?! Barely Sensible. So it's not just the extras who come out as either idiots or assholes - it's the protagonists as well.
- First off, where on Earth are these kids going to get illegal firearms? Can you name a place in Britain where a trio of 17-year-olds who barely even understand what they're asking for beyond the absolute basics ("I need a gun") can find an illegal seller willing to give them weapons? Black market dealers aren't just in the "Give guns to whoever asks" market. A few nervous teens who clearly don't understand the first thing about what they want will either be suspicious as hell or refused service on the basis that they're fucking idiots who will probably shoot him before they manage to even buy the thing. Next off, how are they supposed to train? It takes thousands of rounds fired over the course of many months to get even close to professional level with firearms; if they just took guns and ran, they'd probably screw up big time and cause a lot of collateral damage while missing the target.
- Next up, what wizard is going to be using a gun? A major part of the characterization of magical society is that they're highly insular and have a not-trivial bigotry against Muggles and Muggle technology. Even Ministry employees spend so much time outside of Muggle society that they barely understand technology that's older than them, let alone becoming willing to use it. Bigoted purebloods also have an infamous disdain for Muggles (Pottermore mentions that protesting purebloods had to be threatened with denial of admission of their children to Hogwarts to force them to use a steam train). Being in a nation that famously restricts firearm ownership doesn't help the problem where the average wizard has likely never seen a gun in his life. Actually seeing a wizard, adult or otherwise, wielding a gun is highly unlikely.
- And finally, how effective is this wizard supposed to be? A magical shield likely can't protect against a bullet, no. But how is someone with a gun supposed to fight multiple wizards? Up close, a gunfighter will probably get zapped by an unfathomable number of spells that prevent him from fighting or hit with a simple Expelliarmus that immediately flings his weapon from his grasp. At long range, wizards can freely teleport away from the gunfire as soon as the first person drops just before a distant bang is heard.
- To summarize, it would take a good amount of very well-trained professionals for guns to be a good weapon against wizards. The military has that power, but a couple of underage kids who don't know the first thing about guns or where to get them? It's unlikely that they'll even SEE a gun, let alone get a chance to shoot one at a Death Eater. And you can't just send in the SAS, because you're now massively violating the Statue of Secrecy and allowing for more people to know of wizarding Britain (what, do you think somehow an SAS team will never seen an ounce of magic in their operation even if they need to be sent into the Ministry itself or an area that's specifically hidden from Muggles through magical means like Diagon Alley?). And a ton of people will probably notice any military operation inside Britain that isn't magically hidden from the public, so trying to fight Death Eaters on Muggle turf will probably result in a huge PR clusterfuck.
More than guns, what the Wizarding World needs is a muggle to teach them how to fight a goddamn war. Wizards in general, and the good guys in particular, are terrible at it based on what we've seen. Admittedly, we're seeing it from the perspective of three teenagers who aren't privy to operational details of the Ministry or the Order of the Phoenix, but both seem to be perpetually on the defensive—I can't recall any mention of even one offensive action undertaken by either group. After Voldemort takes over the Ministry, there's never any mention of an organized resistance other than the Order of the Phoenix, and they're so demoralized that it seems to have effectively dissolved by the end of book seven. To put it into perspective, the DA, lead by Neville frickin' Longbottom, is doing a better job of taking the fight to the Death Eaters than the elite group of highly-skilled wizards handpicked by Albus Dumbledore himself.
- Hell, even the effective heroes don't even duel well. Even when Wizards do choose to go lethal, they use Avada Kedavra, which may be an un-blockable instant kill but is a one shot one kill weapon. They need an area-effect weapon, and while I cannot recall an example of a good one from the book that's not fiendfyre, there is one from the movies: In OotP, Umbridge- and unremarkable witch- blows a thick stone wall (a magical one, no less)across the Room of Requirement with the spell "Bombarda Maxima". This Troper can only imagine what a witch or wizard like McGonagall or Flitwick could do with that; it would be the Wizarding version of heavy artillery. Sure, powerful enemies like Voldemort or Lestrange could block it, but the remainder of their armies would be scattered.
- And, of course, it doesn't occur to you that things like that are occurring behind the scenes, and we just don't hear about it because, you know, we're experiencing the story through the eyes of three kids who are on the lam and have no access to any real news to find out what's going on. Brilliant.
- If you read the above carefully, that did occur to me, but I think that the books give an intentional indication that this isn't happening—or at least isn't happening very well. It's made very clear that the wizarding public desperately needed a victory in book six. That's why the Ministry arrested and railroaded Stan Shunpike. The Ministry needed to look like it was doing something, anything, to fight Voldemort. Compare this to the British government during The Blitz, where any small victory was virtually shouted from the rooftops because it understood the strategic imperative of keeping morale high in a disastrous wartime situation. During Half-blood Prince, the Ministry hadn't yet been subverted by Voldemort; the Trio still had access to the media; and Hermione repeatedly displayed a knowledge of current events; so any scrap of good news would probably have been discussed. It shows that the wizarding world could have taken another bit of wisdom from Muggles, because Brits endured The Blitz by (if you'll excuse the use of an overused meme) keeping calm and carrying on. By book seven, though, there's an overall sense that the wizard public has resigned itself to the notion that Voldemort has already won.
To summarize the reasons why guns were never used 1) the books were written and take place in Britain, where gun control is much stricter than America, 2) The Wizarding World attaches a stigma to Muggle ways of doing things, even the protagonists would usually prefer to use magic over any Muggle solution. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, that is the way they do things and they see no reason to change, so they would not use guns. 3)It's a series specifically aimed at children, and teaching children that guns are an effective way to solve problems IS A VERY BAD IDEA!
To summarize, there are two words that come to mind in this scenario: Muggle-born. Yes, the Muggle-borns, the ultimate untapped potential ready for the Muggles to use against the society that rejected them for being too like the one they left. Muggles have superior firepower, numbers, superior weapons, quicker ways to kill enemies, but wizards are better at traps, concealment, trickery, and mind games. In any conflict between the two, the wizard is going to win if he can hide himself before the Muggle can get to him with his superior arsenal, and use stealth and secrecy to chip him down. However, if a full-scale war ever came to pass, it's not unreasonable to think that at some point, eventually a slew of disgruntled Muggle-borns still loyal to their Muggle relatives, will join the ranks of the Muggles to help them take down the wizards, especially if the rampant racism remains anything like it is today, or even escalates, perhaps even reaching Voldemort levels of oppression. They will only suffer silently for so long, let their relatives die, and remain loyal to a society that views them as disposable garbage, thus: The Muggle can pierce even the toughest defense the wizard can muster if he has a Muggle-born to help him.
Anyone remember "firelegs"? Anyone at all? I don't even think the Ministry of Magic even KNOWS about guns, which is fucking ridiculous, they must've been around when the Blitz was blowing London to pieces, they could've put the pieces together as Bombing> war > fighting > what do muggles use to fight > pops out oh look at that long stick I wonder what it does?

Think of it this way on the entire issue, people with guns have a regular knife meant for killing, and wizards have Swiss army knives. In a one on one fight the Muggle will win, but say that they need to do something before they fight, like unscrew the door to get outside. The wizard will win because he has that extra set of tools so really its more like a tool-kit in one vs a killing machine. In a one on one fight the guy with most offensive power wins-the Muggle. But, when you add extra things in there like debris and all sorts of stuff its who can escape/ get things out of the way first-the wizard.

Keep in mind that Wizards know what an arrow is, that they can banish solid objects, and that Voldemort was bought up in an orphanage during/around WW I. He knows what a gun is, and there are probably spells to divert small flying object, and/or arrow/object blocking shield charms.
- Neville was able to save himself from a three story fall with unintentional magic. Later he falls from over 30 feet and only breaks his wrist. The Wizarding World's favorite sport involves a solid iron cannonball racing after them trying to hit whatever part of their body it can. Clearly physical damage isn't something that wizards are going to have much trouble developing counter measures to. Then there's the fact they have an army of invisible unkillable wraiths that can suck out souls en mass or reanimated corpses that no, won't drop after a headshot, sorry. Come on, people, stop being stupid.
- Wizards are way behind the technology curve, and quite insular, so any confrontation is going to go badly for them and well for muggles at first. If it isn't a super quick win for the muggles though then it will quickly turn as the hidebound old duffers get taken out and the more adaptable (and probably Dark Arts dabblers) fill the dead men's shoes. That would be when it starts getting difficult to judge. It is probably for the best that muggles and wizards live separate lives, the death toll would be huge no matter which side eventually won.
Hey, people, maybe the reason wizards (at least the main trio) don't use guns is due to the same reason they don't use Avada Kadevra - because they don't specifically want to kill people, even if those people are their enemies. With magic, there are plenty of ways of disarming or incapacitating someone without taking their life. It's not like Harry, Ron or Hermione stumbles across a Death Eater and the first thing that comes to mind is, "Holy Hufflepuff, I'd better kill this person ASAP!", it's more like "I'd better try to do everything I can to survive this encounter."
- The Battle of Hogwarts says differently. Also, you can disarm a person pretty easily if you have a gun in their face and you're threatening to blow their head off if they don't do what you say. Even if a wizard doesn't recognize what a gun is immediately, shooting a tree or something to demonstrate its power should get their attention and their surrender pretty damn quick.
- Except if you have to waste time explaining the power of a weapon and verbally asking for the Death Eater to surrender, all that really does is give them ample opportunity to Apparate somewhere else and go and find some bulletproof protection, or just Apparate right behind you and kill you before you can turn around, or destroy the gun with magic, and if you're still against the prospect of killing them, than a gun can't help you much more at that point, especially if you've never been trained in how to use one. Also, say the Death Eater (against all odds) agreed to the terms of surrender. They hand over their wand and get down on the ground. Then what are you going to do with a gun, that can't also have been done with a wand from the very beginning?
  - In fact, shooting people as a whole is probably a pretty big leap for our heroes to make from just casting spells at them that both sides have been using for years. You cast a spell that effectively paralyzes someone and wipes some of their memories, you know that no matter how evil they might be, there's always gonna be a way for someone else to undo all of it and help make them right again. But shooting at someone with a weapon that causes extreme pain, not to mention bloodshed, even nonlethally? There's a reason the Cruciatus Curse was made an Unforgivable, and the first time Harry shed another person's blood - even if it was that of Draco, who's been his enemy for years - he was mortified by what he'd done and decided not to use the spell again, only trying to bring it out again in a fit of rage after Snape killed Dumbledore.
  - On the other hand, though, I could (partially, at least) imagine someone like Kingsley Shacklebolt - more learned and experienced than the main trio, being willing and having the mental and emotional capability to use a gun in combat...though again, I still think he, as well as any trained witch or wizard, might still fall victim to the dilemma of, "Is it really fair for me to use this weapon that my enemy hasn't heard of, and that causes extreme pain and leaves wounds and scars, whereas I could incapacitate them just as easily and much more cleanly with magic?" Again, it may not seem like much to a No-Maj, but that's because characters in this world have spent their whole lives training to use a process that is much cleaner than just taking up guns against their enemies, even if it is a touch more complicated.
The only reasonable explanation that this troper can give is: the reason J.K. Rowling didn't include guns or a really believable explanation for why they aren't being used is because she simply dropped the ball. She made a mistake. It happens. She's human.
- That's the obvious Doylist explanation. We're looking for a Watsonian explanation. I can buy that Harry and Hermione wouldn't think of AK-47's, having not been particularly exposed to those kind of things and having become reliant on their wands for defense, but what about all the grown-ups, who would realize what a tactical advantage they would bring and would be more capable of acquiring that sort of thing? They wouldn't have any qualms about breaking the family-friendly sensor. (And seriously, since when are we considering Deathly Hallows kid-friendly?)
- There's no evidence that guns will represent a tactical advance even for an adult wizard with no problem with killing. Disregarding all the cases where using a gun is debunked by a spell, lets say that for some reason a well trained wizard manage to shoot and kill a Death Eater with a gun by surprise, no matter how anti-muggle the other Death Eaters will say "Oh, crap, this things do kill" and will take meassures to counter guns with magic or even worst, they would develop magical guns in a similar way how they have magical trains and cars. That's a thing no one thought before right? you are making aware of the existence of a deathly violent weapon to an army of psychopaths that might pretty much like the gadget and then you may even have a bunch of Death Eaters shooting muggles for fun with magically enhance weapons, using spells to make bullets kill people even more painfully or slowly than normal or things like that, and all sorts of sadistic experiments. Just not a good idea.
Wizards have pure magical power on their side, wraiths who suck souls and literally cause severe depression by being around for a few minutes, inferni which can onlyy be stopped with fire, Giants who are huge as hell and resist to magic (I doubt anyone except Voldemort or Dumbledore could kill one with magic), every evil kind of magical creature with a shred of sentience, that other wizards barely held out against, the one thing you forget is without being stealthy you point a gun at a wizard or witch they will automatically know its dangerous, and wizards do block physical objects with their magic. sneak attacs would work but all out war we would lose alot before they did.
I'm under the impresion that the problem with this discussion is that the use of guns is not Truth in Television. In movies and TV you see someone who has never shot a gun taking an AK-47 from the floor and using it without any trouble and then killing all the evil mooks, or even if the hero is a trained profesional like a solider or a cop or Batman (in a Snyder movie) you see him/her shooting their enemies with a magnific aim that kills dozens of mooks with one gun. Reality is not like that, it takes lots of training to know how to use even the simplest of guns and months of practice to aim well, and even then profesional shooters miss 2 out of 3 times. You want to see a realistic depiction of a man with no aiming experience shooting? watch Shaun of the Dead. Don't believe everything you see in movies, the average civilian with a gun will make a Stormtroper look like Jason Bourne.
I realize this is just reiterating a point that's been stated and restated several times now, but my Sociology professor told the class a few days ago about how it was close to impossible to be able to own a gun in Britain, and how even most police officers weren't authorized to carry them until very recently. So, yes, whether through legal or illegal means, wizards would have to worry not only about how to get their hands on them without arousing suspicion, as well as how to use them properly.
Think about it - to expose Hogwarts students to the complexities of Muggle culture, beliefs, technology, society, history, etc., they have... ONE class. And an elective class at that. How much do you think they can cover in one class? Thus IMHO the class is basically "How Muggles Compensate With No Magic". That's all. So arriving at "How we can use Muggles stuff to make our lives easier?" from "Muggles are Wizards born deaf, blind, mute and paralysed" is an extremely long shot.
People really do forget that not everywhere is America.

Headscratchers / Harry Potter Muggle Weapons

Previous

Index

Next

Headscratchers / Harry Potter Muggle Weapons

Edit Locked

Previous

Index

Next