When the internal logic goes awry

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by mags

Witches and wizards are very immune to conventional physical attacks. Magic seems to be the only thing that can really hurt or kill them.

When he was a small boy, Neville Longbottom's relative (uncle maybe?) threw him out of a second or third story window to get his magic to show itself (much like the "tradition" of teaching someone to swim by throwing them in a lake). Until then, everyone was thinking he was possibly a squib (non-magical person born to a wizarding line, sort of the opposite of Hermione, a witch born to muggles). Fortunately Neville was a wizard, and he bounced. I'm horrified there was the possibility he had been a squib, and this was still done to him. I suppose they could have magically healed him, if he didn't die instantaneously, but it would have hurt like hell in the meantime.

What's the source for all this? I don't remember ever seeing anything in any of the books that suggested that any wizard (except Hagrid) was more resistant to harm than a muggle. The closest thing I can recall to that is when a history lesson where a witch was described as having enjoyed being burned at the stake so much she did it multiple times, but she was using a spell to protect herself from burning.

[Kermor]

One big inconsitency can be found in Who Framed Roger Rabbitt:

Early in the story, Eddy tells Roger how, while looking for a thief in ToonTown, his brother was crushed by a safe dropped on him by said thief. Which means that, eve in ToonTown, humans are still subject to the laws of physics and biology as we understand them. But, later in the movie, in an elevator operated by Droopy, Eddy is literally flatened by the force exerced by the speed at which the elevator climbs. So unless he too is a toon in disguise, I don't see how that's at all possible. Not to mention that it ruins the scene I mentioned earlier.

[ganzfeld]

The good thing about Roger Rabbit is that it's based on an intentionally cartoony premise so the inconsistencies don't make the movie unbearable in the way that, for example, the Matrix and Minority Report are. The bad thing about Roger Rabbit is that it's based on a transparently bigoted novel.

[marrya]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

What's the source for all this? I don't remember ever seeing anything in any of the books that suggested that any wizard (except Hagrid) was more resistant to harm than a muggle. The closest thing I can recall to that is when a history lesson where a witch was described as having enjoyed being burned at the stake so much she did it multiple times, but she was using a spell to protect herself from burning.

I was trying to recall. I have read an extraordinarily good fanfic with a story arc in which Draco finds out hat he was the youngest of four children, his three sisters not having survived the squib test of being thrown from a tower as newborns.

[Mosherette]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

What's the source for all this? I don't remember ever seeing anything in any of the books that suggested that any wizard (except Hagrid) was more resistant to harm than a muggle. The closest thing I can recall to that is when a history lesson where a witch was described as having enjoyed being burned at the stake so much she did it multiple times, but she was using a spell to protect herself from burning.

Neville tells Harry all that in the ?first? book I think.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by Mosherette

Neville tells Harry all that in the ?first? book I think.

I still don't remember it, but the way Neville's Gran was described, she came across as being a fairly brutal guardian so even if the line exists I don't know that it would necessarily be an indication of ordinary behavior toward wizard children.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

What's the source for all this? I don't remember ever seeing anything in any of the books that suggested that any wizard (except Hagrid) was more resistant to harm than a muggle. The closest thing I can recall to that is when a history lesson where a witch was described as having enjoyed being burned at the stake so much she did it multiple times, but she was using a spell to protect herself from burning.

When Hagrid goes to deliver Harry his Hogwarts letter in person, he is aghast at the story the Dursleys had been saying that Harry's parents were killed in an auto accident. It was unthinkable that any reasonably powerful witch/wizard could be killed in something so mundane as an auto accident. Since things like accidents can happen to people before they have a chance for any spells or whatnot, I always took that to mean that the magical power would kick in reflexively to protect from such harm. That is the sort of reflexive magic that Neville's uncle was looking to evoke. It would also explain why there is so little fighting by muggle means, at least in any life-threatening ways.

[Hero_Mike]

Without weapons in general, and specifically, projectile weapons (be they firearms, slingshot, or bow and arrow), the use of spells in combat is much more effective (in terms of the damage it can do) than what most humans can do. A trained MMA fighter would probably be able to incapacitate a wizard if at close range, but it may take time for them to move into such "close range".

[GenYus234]

According to an article on the Harry Potter wiki that references a link from Pottermore, a caretaker at Hogwart's set up a trap to catch a poltergeist. When the trap failed, the poltergeist began a three day standoff using a blunderbuss, minature cannon, cutlasses and crossbows.

If wizards were immune to muggle weapons (especially when they have time to prepare), then it would have been child's play to block any effects from his weapons and the standoff would have been over as soon as a wizard/witch could have been called to negate or shield themself from the weapons.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

When Hagrid goes to deliver Harry his Hogwarts letter in person, he is aghast at the story the Dursleys had been saying that Harry's parents were killed in an auto accident. It was unthinkable that any reasonably powerful witch/wizard could be killed in something so mundane as an auto accident. Since things like accidents can happen to people before they have a chance for any spells or whatnot, I always took that to mean that the magical power would kick in reflexively to protect from such harm. That is the sort of reflexive magic that Neville's uncle was looking to evoke. It would also explain why there is so little fighting by muggle means, at least in any life-threatening ways.

I interpreted Hagrid's indignation as more a result of the Dursleys being so crass that they'd lied to Harry and hadn't informed him that his parents had bravely died saving his life: it was an insult to their sacrifice to simply lie and say they'd died mundanely.

[Mickey Blue]

Yea same here, I don't have the book in front of me but I think the idea was that Harry's parents were extremely famous for not only fighting alongside Dumbledore against Voldemort but bravely facing down Voldemort and dying to protect their son even thought it meant their death.

It's the idea of taking a person (or persons, in this case) who died in an extremely memorable, famous, and heroic way and telling somebody else they died in some extremely typical way.

It's also noted that when Snape leaps out of the window (or something) trying to escape Hogwarts after he's ousted by the uprising they comment that he may have died in the fall (only of course to note that he can now fly sans a broom) so obviously surviving a great fall (wand or not) is not something a typical wizard can do.

While there may be something to the 'wizard reflexive protection magic' thing, I don't think it's a panacea to all, or even most, danger.