Goblet of Fire and an Armed Society.
I’ve thought about this for a while and it has finally bugged me enough to post about it. You may recall from reading GoF or watching the recently released to DVD movie, that Voldermort’s crew rolls in pretty hard and mucks up the World Quidditch Championship after party. In the movie it was a little more dramatic and violent than in the book, but effectively the same thing happened.
A bunch of evil folks (Death Eaters) used weapons (in the form of magic) to terrorize and attack a large body of average citizens. All civilians fled the death and destruction while the members of the Ministry of Magic (as the law enforcement agency) bravely went out to face down the bad guys.
I don’t see this happening.
Not at all.
Everyone at this after party was a Wizard (well, except for the camp site owners). So in theory, everyone there was in some way armed. Sure the Death Eaters were using bad ass “kill’n” spells, but even the children there could cast spells to make them puke slugs and what not. See how long you would live if someone disappeared your bones or caught you on fire or dropped something heavy on your head. “Winguardian Levyosso” indeed.
In actuality what would happen is the 20 or so jerks would start shooting up the joint blowing up tents and what not, simple survival instinct would kick in and most world lash out with their own use of force. The result would be overwhelming. 20 evil dudes verses thousands and thousands (assuming even a 70 to 90 percent pansy rate, there were, as far as I recall over 100 thousand in attendance).
A pretty simple application of the Lancaster equation on the effectiveness of a force (the effectiveness of a force is directly proportional to the effectiveness of its weapons and to the square of its numbers) would show realistically the Death Eater’s weapons could not be that much more effective to overcome the average citizens numbers.
In all the Harry Potter books whenever Wizards fight they do so in single combat with directed weapons (except when Sirius Black was accused of “blowing up” a bunch of muggles). This type of fighting is essentially sidearm combat.
Now, envision 1,000 armed people sitting around having a good time and 20 anti-social jerks start shooting up the place. How long do you think it would take before there were 20 dead jerks? There are still people out there who take responsability of the group seriously.
So basically J.K Roland is either completely wrong about violence and self defense or the British behave in ways my American brain can’t fathom.
What I DO KNOW, is if the above scenarios happened in Texas, well, lets just say the Death Eaters wouldn’t be an issue anymore.
Otter
EDIT... While not exactly what I am talking about... The Smallest Minority has pointed out yet again that Armed muggles reduce crime.
A bunch of evil folks (Death Eaters) used weapons (in the form of magic) to terrorize and attack a large body of average citizens. All civilians fled the death and destruction while the members of the Ministry of Magic (as the law enforcement agency) bravely went out to face down the bad guys.
I don’t see this happening.
Not at all.
Everyone at this after party was a Wizard (well, except for the camp site owners). So in theory, everyone there was in some way armed. Sure the Death Eaters were using bad ass “kill’n” spells, but even the children there could cast spells to make them puke slugs and what not. See how long you would live if someone disappeared your bones or caught you on fire or dropped something heavy on your head. “Winguardian Levyosso” indeed.
In actuality what would happen is the 20 or so jerks would start shooting up the joint blowing up tents and what not, simple survival instinct would kick in and most world lash out with their own use of force. The result would be overwhelming. 20 evil dudes verses thousands and thousands (assuming even a 70 to 90 percent pansy rate, there were, as far as I recall over 100 thousand in attendance).
A pretty simple application of the Lancaster equation on the effectiveness of a force (the effectiveness of a force is directly proportional to the effectiveness of its weapons and to the square of its numbers) would show realistically the Death Eater’s weapons could not be that much more effective to overcome the average citizens numbers.
In all the Harry Potter books whenever Wizards fight they do so in single combat with directed weapons (except when Sirius Black was accused of “blowing up” a bunch of muggles). This type of fighting is essentially sidearm combat.
Now, envision 1,000 armed people sitting around having a good time and 20 anti-social jerks start shooting up the place. How long do you think it would take before there were 20 dead jerks? There are still people out there who take responsability of the group seriously.
So basically J.K Roland is either completely wrong about violence and self defense or the British behave in ways my American brain can’t fathom.
What I DO KNOW, is if the above scenarios happened in Texas, well, lets just say the Death Eaters wouldn’t be an issue anymore.
Otter
EDIT... While not exactly what I am talking about... The Smallest Minority has pointed out yet again that Armed muggles reduce crime.
posted by The Management at 1:25 PM
11 Comments:
Well, if you remember 20 or so armed guys captured a building of bunches of people on Die Hard, so if Hollywood says it's so, I'm withem.
Ahh but in Die Hard... non-of the officeworkers were ARMED. That's the point. An armed society wouldn't put up with that crap.
Otter
none of... not "non-of"
I know you love guns, but I don't. I never have. I think that some people are just too damn stupid to own firearms!!! If I had a gun in a emergency and had to use it, I probably would end up shooting myself!
See that's part of my problem I have with the anti-gun crowd's logic.
Let me rephrase what you said.
"I can't trust myself with a gun, therefore I don't trust anyone else with one."
In the end it's a personal decision and should be enforced against an entire society. Yeah, some people shouldn't have guns... Some people shouldn't cook either...
In my example, Death Eaters have no issues believing they can opperate "firearms." Why limit those who could defend against them because you feel you couldn't.
Also Linda, the answer to not shooting yourself if you needed to use a gun is to train and become familiar with weapons.
Otter
Not true, Otter, there are some people who could and do carry guns. I have no problem with people owning guns, I just prefer not to have them myself. I was raised in a household with guns in an area where most homes had guns.
I do know that you are right, with training most people could have guns, but does that mean that they will be a responsible gun owner? Maybe, maybe not. I am just not sure if I am ready for most of society to own guns.
If it came down do it and it was needed, I probably would have a gun, but I do not feel threatened to the point where I need one right now. If society gets to the point that everybody needs a gun, maybe I really don't want to be here any more and maybe my getting killed by not protecting myself would be best. I don't know, since this is all hypothetical.
I do understand that we have the right to bare arms and maybe I am wrong, but I really don't feel like I (or anybody else)am qualified to give out justice on my own. Some things are for courts to decide.
I do understand that in the context of what you said, it is an extreme hypothetical situation, but whose to say what is right.
I hate this stuff, I know I am going to be sorry that I replied!!
Linda,
What you are saying is Freudian projection at its most obvious.
"I can't be trusted with a gun, therefore I don't trust anybody else with a gun."
What puerile rubbish! Sorry if that offends but it is true. If your personal feeling of self-worth is so low as to allow you to contemplate a criminal killing you as a good thing, then I pity you.
As for me, anyone who poses a genuine threat to me or my family leaves in a pine box.
In theory it is a good thing to say, but with faced with a real threat some people might not be able to handle the situation, even if they have been trained.
Not only do I lack the skills to possess and fire and gun, I have no desire to.
All I am saying is that if society is to the point that we feel that we must defend ourselves or die, is that really any way to live. Not for me. Maybe that is narrow minded of me, but maybe I feel that your point of view is narrow minded.
The good thing about our society is that we have a choice. You choose to bare arms, I do not.
I saw this movie on Saturday and I completely see what Otter is saying. These evil death mongers or whatever they are called walked into the magically equivalent of good death mongers and the good death mongers just rolled over and took it up the wand.
Side note this movie wasn't really that good anyway.
Solution: Not less guns, more guns, and get them in the hands of teh right people.
---ASK
You know guns don't kill people, Death Eaters kill people.
Post a Comment
<< Home