DISCUSSION: Weapons and violence in Pokémon fanfiction

[InfiniteBakuphoon]

We all know that most conflicts in official Pokémon media are almost always resolved through the use of the series' titular magical creatures in a battle of some sort, rather than through more "realistic" methods such as, say, hand-to-hand combat, or using a gun or a sword or some other deadly weapon. Obviously, this is because: 1) Pokémon battles are what the series revolves around, not gunfights, swordfights, or fistfights; and: 2) Pokémon is a generally kid-friendly franchise, which precludes most of those aforementioned things from happening anyway. However, in the wild world of fanfiction, these restrictions are no longer necessarily present, which means that there are opportunities — and perhaps even temptations — to expand the scope of conflict and violence beyond solely Pokémon battles.

Said opportunities — and temptations — are numerous. For example: why should a villainous team leader risk the fate of the world and their meticulous evil plan for it on some Pokémon battle, when they can just whip out a gun or some other suitably deadly weapon and instantly take out their nemesis before they can even call out their Pokémon... or at least use said weapon to shift the balance of power in their favor? Or better yet, why not have some random grunt do the same thing instead, long before they even reach the villainous team leader in the first place?

Or, for a somewhat edgier example, there's also the opportunity — and the temptation — to feature more "realistic" forms of violence in more common and smaller-scale conflicts. Why challenge someone who's threatening you to a Pokémon battle when you can just punch them in the face or pull out a knife and either: 1) knock them out and end the conflict right then and there; or 2) pin them to the nearest wall or tree and make them beg for mercy/interrogate them for important plot details/etc.?

Finally, there's also the opportunity — and maybe the temptation — to take some of the more fantastical elements of the series and use them in more "realistic" (and often more violent) ways. Like, say, using a Pikachu's Thunderbolt to electrocute someone... or using a Voltorb's Self-Destruct to blow up a building or a car... or even using the Ultimate Weapon from the Kalos games in the same manner as real-life nuclear weapons (as a deterrent used by the protagonists, the antagonists, or some other powerful faction... or possibly even as a trump card for one of the more villainous groups, in a particularly terrible scenario).

That all said, there's very much the question of whether or not these forms of violence and conflict should be featured in Pokémon fanfic... or to put it another way: whether a Pokémon fanfic with these things ceases to truly be a Pokémon fanfic as opposed to a Someone's-Darker-and-Edgier-Version-of-Pokémon fanfic. And even if this can be said to be "true", there's another question: does it even matter? Is there a need to reconcile the possibility of having things like guns, knives, fistfights, etc. in Pokémon fanfiction with canon's enforcement of a world revolving entirely around relatively innocent Pokémon battles? I do have my own thoughts on all of this, but I think I want to see what everyone else's thoughts are before I fully share my own (and because I've probably taken enough space on this post already ). So what are everyone's thoughts?

 

[Glitchipedia]

In my RP scenarios, the very existence of Pokémon has somewhat lessened the need for firearms or other weapons, although they still exist. Pokémon themselves are generally tough enough to withstand gunshots—they'd have to be, considering how much punishment they can take in the course of a battle.

As for why Pokémon aren't used to kill or injure people directly, I take the early anime concept of there being "no such thing as a bad Pokémon" and run with it. In general, Pokémon will not consciously cause lasting harm to a human being unless they've been subjected to some form of psychological reprogramming, such as Shadowfication. This also explains why, with all their power, they are not the dominant species on the planet—they're content with their lot in life and have no selfish desire for anything more.

 

[diamondpearl876]

I've actually seen a lot of real life weapon elements incorporated into fanfics. It's definitely more a feature in... not quite darker/grittier fanfics, but fics that are suitable for an older audience.

I'd expect people to still buy and utilize weapons in the Pokémon world. Even if Pokémon have the power to annihilate humans on their own, timing matters a lot in situations where weapons would be needed, as does adrenaline and the fight-or-flight response. There's never a guarantee a Pokémon will be out of their ball when a trainer needs them to attack, and it takes time to release them and call out a command, not to mention time and the ability to think on your feet and come up with a plan. It's also never a guarantee that a Pokémon will be able to divide its attention and move fast enough to protect its trainer, ie., when they're engaging in a fight with another tough Pokémon while another human/'mon attacks the trainer. Plus, I imagine a lot of people would break the rules and sic a ton of Pokémon on others to outnumber them, so it's best for the trainer to cover all their bases.

 

[LightningTopaz]

I'm a huge fan of fantasy, so swords and bows rub shoulders with Pokemon a lot.

I'd imagine they can take your standard fantasy weaponry and theoretically firearms. If you really want to let your imagination run wild, Pokemon could hypothetically take laser guns and lightsabers. The question is deciding when weaponry would be needed, and when Pokemon could step in, as others have said.

 

[Ereshkigal]

LightningTopaz reminded me of something: Pokemon engineered to have weapons part of them.

There is a precedence for this in the games: Genesect.

So, a scary possibility is someone engineering, say, a Metagross to have miniguns on its back.

 

[Twilight-Kun]

LightningTopaz reminded me of something: Pokemon engineered to have weapons part of them.

There is a precedence for this in the games: Genesect.

So, a scary possibility is someone engineering, say, a Metagross to have miniguns on its back.

Spoiler: Daily commute

I don't think it needs something as clunky as chainguns to be a threat

Feels like most weapons have been phased out of existence due to how integrated pokémon are in society

And before you say "the early anime had guns!" that was before Pokémon became popular and the world was a lot smaller than it is now, and the focus of the series changed

But, if one decides to have weapons, I imagine to ever get a hope of using them, you'd have to shoot first, ask questions later

Granted, it's not like the anime ever does a good job of making pokémon attacks feel dangerous - how many flamethrowers and thunderbolts has Team Rocket taken, for example?

Heck, they even shrug off attacks from pseudo-legendary pokémon with ease

Would bullets even harm the average pokémon world human?

 

[Ereshkigal]

I don't think it needs something as clunky as chainguns to be a threat

Feels like most weapons have been phased out of existence due to how integrated pokémon are in society

And before you say "the early anime had guns!" that was before Pokémon became popular and the world was a lot smaller than it is now, and the focus of the series changed

But, if one decides to have weapons, I imagine to ever get a hope of using them, you'd have to shoot first, ask questions later

Granted, it's not like the anime ever does a good job of making pokémon attacks feel dangerous - how many flamethrowers and thunderbolts has Team Rocket taken, for example?

Heck, they even shrug off attacks from pseudo-legendary pokémon with ease

Would bullets even harm the average pokémon world human?

Eh, I dunno. I think the tank principle applies here; while the main attack may be quite deadly, it's the other things and creative counter-attacks that must be defended against. That's why a number of real-life tanks operate either with heavy infantry support or secondary weapons. I'm thinking that many of the same problems plaguing tanks in real life would plague Pokemon playing a similar role, with the added psychological impact of damaging or even killing a creature enemy soldiers have bonded with. So, I can see a certain amount of time and research devoted into giving pokemon like Metagross secondary options.

Plus, in real life, training up a Metagross and having it fully bond with a soldier to the point that it's truly combat effective can take months or even years, most likely. Training someone with an assault rifle takes as little as two weeks. Less if you don't particularly care how accurate they are and just need sheer volume of fire. So if they've ever had the kind of war where you need to train a lot of people in warfare very, very fast I can see regular weapons like firearms sticking around.

And, hey, if we can make firearms intended for use on tanks, we can shoot a person in the Pokeverse and kill them

 

[Twilight-Kun]

Given that Metagross is one of the few pokémon that learns Agility that actually benefits from it (seriously, there's a stupid number of already-fast pokémon that learn it) properly raising one and then further enhancing it with human technology would be...

Well, Steven Stone's Megagross (spelling intentional) is capable of leveling buildings

Imagine an entire infantry with that power

The battle we briefly saw in the Lucario movie would be paltry compared to that

Hm...and then there's the trainer to take into account, since without one, a pokémon loses a lot of power, so you'd also need a few pokémon to keep you safe during conflict...

Quite a lot to think about

 

[Beth Pavell]

There would always be a place for truly personal defence, whatever point of the world's history you care to talk about. Even with the technology of the Poké Ball, pokémon are quite time and resource intensive, and in any case, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. If your main weapon is a pokémon, you still have your own hands free to carry a weapon of your own.

 

[MisheardWhisper]

I have what I feel is considered a pretty lazy way of confronting issues that 'would crop up' if one applied real world logic to the Pokemon world: I don't. Or I do.

Lemme 'splain. Questions about guns, about language barriers, about eating Pokemon, about the safety of free-range ten-year-olds are nitpicky. Sometimes I'm in the mood to nitpick them, so I go in hard and try to create a satire of the concept. Usually I can't be bothered, so I simply... don't. It might not be the most helpful answer, but just remember that it *is* an answer. If you're trying very hard to sustain verisimilitude, it won't be the approach for you, but on the flipside, I reckon it's perfectly fine and valid to just handwave it - particularly if you're not trying to create a particularly realistic fic.

It certainly is fine and enjoyable to ask those what-if questions - but we as fan authors can't be bogged down by them in every single fic, I think. There are no guns in the Pokemon games, so there are no guns in my Pokemon fic. Simple, and as long as I keep the disbelief suspended... effective.

 

[Drakon]

I write mostly pokemon war stories so firearms and conventional or even futuristic weapons like laser cannons and the like make very common appearances. Granted, improvised weapons also make an appearance.

I justify the development and use of weapons by the fact that perhaps there are people who won't or can't train pokemon but need someway to defend themselves. That and conventional weaponry has the advantage of mass production, mass training and lowered maintainence costs. And of course, you can store a rifle in a closet for years without any issues....you can't do that with a pokemon.

That said, I think conventional violence and weapons do have a place in pokemon fics but they have to be used judiciously so that pokemon aren't simply in the background.

 

[Greninjaman]

That said, I think conventional violence and weapons do have a place in pokemon fics but they have to be used judiciously so that pokemon aren't simply in the background.

Honestly, why use guns and weapons when you have a Dragonite (or really any really powerful Pokemon) blasting everything in sight? I can see a lot of ways Pokemon are more effective.

 

[Beth Pavell]

Well, not everyone can have a Dragonite. Really powerful pokémon are rare, they take a lot of training to become powerful in the first place, and might have any number of other logistical problems - specialised diets, for example. Some people might be able to overcome these problems, but for those who can't, a using a tool as a weapon rather than a living thing make sense.

Something I suspect a lot of poké-wars style fics overlook is how much logistics dictates warfare. The technology of the Poké Ball changes a lot in that regard. But a powerful pokémon isn't much use if you can't feed it. A specialised pokémon might not be worth using at all if they're difficult and expensive to find. The further back in history you go, the more these problems multiply - moves that aren't available because TMs haven't been invented, breeding moves that don't exist because the necessary species haven't been discovered yet, etc.

 

[Ereshkigal]

That said, I think conventional violence and weapons do have a place in pokemon fics but they have to be used judiciously so that pokemon aren't simply in the background.

Or integrate the Pokemon in as part of the conventional weapons.

I have a Gardevoir genetically-engineered to summon psychic versions of common firearms, Metagross used as combat walkers in mobile infantry, Genesects used as urban tanks, Mewtwo is hinted to have originally been an American military project contracted with Silph Co. (who promptly outsourced it to Team Rocket and then refused to pay when things went south, thus creating the fiasco that led to Team Rocket invading Silph Co.'s HQ), and a lot of real-world weapons mixed in. My version of Cynthia outright admits to shooting Cyrus with a gun while one of her Pokemon distracted him by murdering one of his.

But, also, what @Beth Pavell said about logistics applies: The main characters and various trainers can't have a Genesect because they don't have the facilities to clone one, don't have the specialized food it requires, and lack the tools and parts to maintain its cybernetics. Thus, the Genesect is limited to the militaries and a couple of really-powerful corporations who can afford the specialized needs of the creature.

This is also why, despite being able to clone fossils, they're not facing their own version of Jurassic Park. Being able to clone an Aerodactyl is one thing; meeting the dietary requirements of something that's been extinct for millions of years is something else entirely.

Honestly, why use guns and weapons when you have a Dragonite (or really any really powerful Pokemon) blasting everything in sight? I can see a lot of ways Pokemon are more effective.

Shoot the trainer. The trainer can't command the Pokemon if they have a sucking wound where their lung or heart used to be. Most wilderness trainer battles are well within the ranges at which a typical modern shotgun is still lethal.

Or shoot the Dragonite. There's really not much suggesting it would stand up against a shotgun any better than a human or bear would.

And, honestly, even in real-life firearms are not the most effective weapons by a long stretch. They're not even the most effective weapons commonly available to civilians. But end of the day, firearms are the option that require the least investment of resources to become deadly with; that's why they became so common and why they remain in heavy use today. Even in the Pokemon world, I don't see that changing much.

 

[Drakon]

They're not even the most effective weapons commonly available to civilians. But end of the day, firearms are the option that require the least investment of resources to become deadly with; that's why they became so common and why they remain in heavy use today. Even in the Pokemon world, I don't see that changing much.

For armies (government or private) artillery rules supreme. For civilians, firearms are probably the most effective weapons available.

Something I suspect a lot of poké-wars style fics overlook is how much logistics dictates warfare. The technology of the Poké Ball changes a lot in that regard. But a powerful pokémon isn't much use if you can't feed it. A specialised pokémon might not be worth using at all if they're difficult and expensive to find. The further back in history you go, the more these problems multiply - moves that aren't available because TMs haven't been invented, breeding moves that don't exist because the necessary species haven't been discovered yet, etc.

And you're back to why my Poké Wars fics feature so much use of conventional weaponry in the later arcs where it's become a full-out war instead of people trying to escape, evade and survive. Once you get to that scale, the logistics chain for war pokémon gets impractically large...well that and the pokémon are mostly hostile so...no more capturing or breeding pokémon.

Honestly, why use guns and weapons when you have a Dragonite (or really any really powerful Pokemon) blasting everything in sight? I can see a lot of ways Pokemon are more effective.

And conversely, I see a lot of ways standard weapons are more effective:

1. No risk of weapon turning against its user
2. Easier/faster to repair
3. Quicker to train the user
4. Can be used immediately
5. Can be stored indefinitely with minimal care
6. Faster to produce
7. Mass production and economy of scale

 

[Ereshkigal]

For armies (government or private) artillery rules supreme. For civilians, firearms are probably the most effective weapons available.

I would argue not even close on any scale. Mainly because while firearms are very easy to gain deadly expertise with, a large number of people who use them simply have no training at all. There are a large number of shootings where absolutely no one is hit, and also a large number where the people actually shot are not intended victims at all.

Improvised explosives and improvised incendiaries are much more effective. They're also easier to get into place (it's surprising how many people don't recognize a bomb if it doesn't resemble dynamite strapped to an alarm clock, despite media efforts otherwise), have a far lower chance of missing the target (it's kinda hard to miss with close-range explosions or dowsing an entire room with redneck napalm*), and are very high on the list of deadly methods. They just require a lot more time to make than loading a gun does, so you need to prep beforehand. Also, strapping them to yourself and telling a cop that they have "brought a gun to a bomb fight" gives the cop a perfect excuse for getting their steps in for the day**, whereas a gun will just get you shot.

*Please do not ask me for recipes, even in private messages. I would think I wouldn't have to include this disclaimer, but the internet has disabused me of this notion.
**I wonder if anyone will get this reference?

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

I don't feel like the issue needs to be addressed at all if you aren't doing a ton of worldbuilding and have a setting that's fairly true-to-reality anyway. It's perfectly acceptable to have guns exist without them being accessible to the characters in the story or shown in use by anyone. If you're writing a conventional OTJ with a villainous team, then you can explain their lack of firearms any number of ways.

For example, the grunts signing up didn't do so to kill kids, good lord! They only intimidate and rob people, that's much less damaging to their ability to sleep at night! Alternatively, gun laws require training and licensing, (and there's no readily accessible black market weaponry) and it's hard to get your entire criminal organisation equipped with firearms when their permanent address is '4 Secret Underground Lair, Route 124.'

You can have guns appear in relatively tame contexts, too. A police officer has a handgun in a holster but doesn't point it at anyone. A hobbyist hunter has a rifle for use on deerling. Someone else shoots clay pidgey with a shotgun. The inclusion of guns doesn't immediately escalate things to 'ten-year-olds regularly encounter assault weapons'.

As for my perspective on warfare, I believe that many pokémon would have viable applications in warfare, but that the advantages of firearms, artillery and aircraft are such that they would remain the principle armaments of a state military. Some of these advantages as relating to small arms are: standardisation, ease of training, use and maintenance, the existence of a safety catch, not having a need for a handler to relay specific commands to a more or less intelligent animal. Guns do not need to eat, or sleep. They don't get sick, or age, or die. They can break, but that's hard to do. They are reliable.

Civilians, however, would probably have an easier time defending themselves with pokémon than guns. One of the best advantages of having a trained pokémon over a gun is that if someone attacks you, your pokémon will act in your defence regardless. You can't disarm a magical creature with natural weapons and they won't have any trouble deciding to attack a threat to their trainer. (You can steal a pokéball, I guess, but that's context-dependent and there's plenty of ways to protect against that eventuality.) Sure, guns are pretty lethal ranged weapons, but most people struggle to intentionally kill people with them. It's usually pretty difficult to overcome the instinct not to end human lives.

I suspect a lot of poké-wars style fics overlook is how much logistics dictates warfare.

This is the number one underappreciated issue in any discussion about warfare or firearms in a pokémon world. If the primary weapon of a soldier is a pokémon or even a whole team of them, that multiplies the food requirements of the army. An army marches on its stomach, it is said. Pokémon can have very large stomachs.

Or integrate the Pokemon in as part of the conventional weapons. I have a Gardevoir genetically-engineered to summon psychic versions of common firearms,

Why are psychic apparitions of firearms more effective than ordinary blasts of psychic energy? Why would a gardevoir need to summon a facsimile of a firearm in order to rapidly fire on a target with multiple projectiles? Why is this considered a wise course of action when military use of firearms depends so heavily on trigger discipline and prompt response to orders — orders which now have to be relayed through a handler.

Improvised explosives and improvised incendiaries are much more effective.

More 'effective' is context-dependent, but it's absolutely true that homemade explosives are the most potentially destructive weapon available to ordinary civilians.

Now follows a conversation continued here from the cliches thread at Beth's suggestion:

Pumas very much can be mass-manufactured.

That's not true — mass manufacture is the efficient production of standardised products, and connotes the use of assembly lines or other forms of automation. Any form of breeding is necessarily artisan.

Also, the 8.1 guns per household is a misleading statement. Also, if you want fun, the U.S. is not the top nation for rate of houses owning guns.

I know this stuff, as it happens. The thing is, my argument wasn't "the US has so many guns, how crazy is that." I said nothing about whether I thought the US had too high a gun ownership rate. I said that there isn't a national debate about puma ownership because pumas can't be mass manufactured, can't be smuggled into a crowded building in your coat, and already require permits to own. All those things are true. I used the 8.1/household statistic as a facetious way of pointing out that if there were more pumas than human beings in a country then people would probably freak out.

part of the unreasonable panic is assuming that somehow a high rate of access to firearms translates to high rate of firearm violence,

Mate, I live way over in the UK, and I love knowing that there hasn't been a school shooting here since 1996. The US has had thousands. In fact, it's the only developed country in the world where school shootings aren't rare, and the only prominent developed country with minimal gun control laws. I'm not surprised there's a national 'panic' and I don't disagree with the general conclusion that these are related facts.

You talk about Switzerland — did you know that Swiss gun owners aren't allowed to keep their ammo with their guns, that violent and incompetent people aren't allowed to own guns, that assault weapons are banned, and that gun vendors are strictly regulated and licensed? It is absolutely false that Switzerland shows that firearm deaths in the US are unrelated to insufficient gun control.

Most people are not afraid of a puma because the only pumas they've seen are used to being around people.

I don't believe that most people aren't afraid of pumas up close and personal. I'm convinced that most people, presented with a large predator outside of a safe exhibit, would break a sweat.

People shit themselves when attacked by regular housecats too. But the point is, the threat of the animal comes when it is attacking. A gun carries that same level of menace simply being pointed at you. They're on entirely different levels.

A large predator snarling or roaring is terrifying without an actual attack. A trainer saying "I'm going to sic this dangerous animal on you if you don't do as I say" is pretty terrifying. On the other side of this comparison, I believe that for every person that tries to pet a cougar with its teeth bared, there's a person who'll be blasé about a gun pointed at them.

In any case, @Ereshkigal, I still absolutely 100% believe that in a conventional pokémon world that guns would be a less significant method of applying threat or lethal force, considering that you can own, train, and use pokéballs to smuggle animals that can definitely kill people with magic.

 

[Ereshkigal]

Why are psychic apparitions of firearms more effective than ordinary blasts of psychic energy? Why would a gardevoir need to summon a facsimile of a firearm in order to rapidly fire on a target with multiple projectiles? Why is this considered a wise course of action when military use of firearms depends so heavily on trigger discipline and prompt response to orders — orders which now have to be relayed through a handler.

It comes down to depictions of how psychic powers work; ordinary blasts of psychic energy are very powerful, but also slow for repeated firing. You can't have a psychic use their powers for covering fire situations that crop up on the battlefield; this Pokemon is engineered for warfare, not general trainer usage, and expected to be capable of performing many of the same functions as a regular soldier. And it's considered a wise course of action because the Gardevoir may end up in a situation where they have to defend their wounded trainer until evac is possible, and can't necessarily rely on there being firearms around for them to pick up.

More 'effective' is context-dependent, but it's absolutely true that homemade explosives are the most potentially destructive weapon available to ordinary civilians.

This is true. Much of my examination of it is in usefulness for killing people.

That's not true — mass manufacture is the efficient production of standardised products, and connotes the use of assembly lines or other forms of automation. Any form of breeding is necessarily artisan.

You really think one can't use a form of assembly lines and automation, as well as control of genes to produce a standard product, for breeding?

I know this stuff, as it happens. The thing is, my argument wasn't "the US has so many guns, how crazy is that." I said nothing about whether I thought the US had too high a gun ownership rate. I said that there isn't a national debate about puma ownership because pumas can't be mass manufactured, can't be smuggled into a crowded building in your coat, and already require permits to own. All those things are true. I used the 8.1/household statistic as a facetious way of pointing out that if there were more pumas than human beings in a country then people would probably freak out.

Which I mostly ignored because it's kinda, well, lacking in knowledge of the subject. Yes, you can smuggle in a handgun like that, but in many places that's illegal and you can't do it with a larger weapon. Yes, you can mass-manufacture pumas, just it's not something people do because there's no demand for pumas. No, people will not panic at more pumas than people around as long as they are not stalking the people themselves (we have areas of the U.S. with large cats where this comes up in real life, so this is based on real-life situations). Yes, guns require permits to own; do you think our government wants every psycho on the street to have easy access to assault rifles?

Most of those things are true, all are presented in a way that is misleading.

Mate, I live way over in the UK, and I love knowing that there hasn't been a school shooting here since 1996. The US has had thousands. In fact, it's the only developed country in the world where school shootings aren't rare, and the only prominent developed country with minimal gun control laws. I'm not surprised there's a national 'panic' and I don't disagree with the general conclusion that these are related facts.

You talk about Switzerland — did you know that Swiss gun owners aren't allowed to keep their ammo with their guns, that violent and incompetent people aren't allowed to own guns, that assault weapons are banned, and that gun vendors are strictly regulated and licensed? It is absolutely false that Switzerland shows that firearm deaths in the US are unrelated to insufficient gun control.

The U.S. has had a constant school shooting problem since the 1800s, with the earliest school massacre happening back when we were still British (back when firearms were still muzzle-loaders). This isn't being caused by access to assault weapons (which, by the way, are illegal for civilians to own in the U.S. without special licensing*).

As for keeping ammo with the guns: What do you think is taught in basic gun safety classes here and required in many areas? It's just that, being the size of Europe and with half the population, it's rather difficult to do the necessary checks (and, sometimes, human safety against wild animals trumps human safety against other humans; the more likely a region is to have wild animal attacks, the more hands-off the firearm laws tend to be).

*One of the definitions of "assault weapon" is illegal in the U.S. But, under laws, we've had three that I know of. Maybe more. Needless to say, "assault weapon" is a meaningless term for some Americans simply because it's a goalpost on rocketskates. Like, well, pretty much all of the gun control and anti-gun control terms. Part of why I'm not using them is I'd have to spend too much time providing which of the many definitions I prefer.

I don't believe that most people aren't afraid of pumas up close and personal. I'm convinced that most people, presented with a large predator outside of a safe exhibit, would break a sweat.

You don't live in an area where walking outside to see a cougar on your front porch is a common phenomenon. Or where you can have bears rooting through your garbage. And some of these are animals large enough that being shot with a pistol is little more than an annoyance.

A large predator snarling or roaring is terrifying without an actual attack. A trainer saying "I'm going to sic this dangerous animal on you if you don't do as I say" is pretty terrifying. On the other side of this comparison, I believe that for every person that tries to pet a cougar with its teeth bared, there's a person who'll be blasé about a gun pointed at them.

I've seen people be leery of a large animal that is threatening attack, but no more leery than the domesticated versions they keep as pets; often, this results in them getting attacked because they make the mistake of not account for the wild, untamed animal portion of the equation. On the other hand, firearms are never presented as anything except dangerous (one mantra for gun safety is "the gun is always loaded and capable of firing, even if it's in pieces and all ammunition is in another room"). There's an entire world of difference between how animals are portrayed and how firearms are portrayed.

In any case, @Ereshkigal, I still absolutely 100% believe that in a conventional pokémon world that guns would be a less significant method of applying threat or lethal force, considering that you can own, train, and use pokéballs to smuggle animals that can definitely kill people with magic.

It takes relatively long periods of time to train a pokemon to have that form of lethality. You can pick up a gun and start shooting it with no training at all. Most people are going to pick the item which is easiest to use, not the one they have to devote weeks, months, and years of their lives to use. That's why, despite improvised explosive knowledge being fairly easy to gain in the U.S., our main problem is shooting each other and not blowing each other up.

That's why I think firearms would be just as dominant in a Pokeverse as in real life. After all, it's why they became dominant in real life to begin with; why would that change?

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

You really think one can't use a form of assembly lines and automation, as well as control of genes to produce a standard product, for breeding?

No, you can't, not because it's physically impossible, but because it's prohibitively expensive to clone millions of large animals.

Yes, you can smuggle in a handgun like that, but in many places that's illegal

Yes, and? If one were a criminal seeking to intimidate, then dangerous pokémon can be taken anywhere you could take a handgun.

No, people will not panic at more pumas than people

I think they would, mate. I really do.

Yes, guns require permits to own; do you think our government wants every psycho on the street to have easy access to assault rifles?

You don't need a permit to buy a gun in most states. Several states don't require you to have a permit to carry a handgun either. Come off it.

You don't live in an area where walking outside to see a cougar on your front porch is a common phenomenon. Or where you can have bears rooting through your garbage. And some of these are animals large enough that being shot with a pistol is little more than an annoyance.

Most people don't live in those conditions, and would shit themselves if faced with one in ordinary circumstances. Remember I'm talking about this analogously with pokémon being used to intimidate people. Hell, the "you can't even shoot them" thing is a point in favour of my perspective, surely?

There's an entire world of difference between how animals are portrayed and how firearms are portrayed.

Lots of people grow up with teddy bears. Doesn't mean they won't feel fear if they see a grizzly. Or an ursaring.

It takes relatively long periods of time to train a pokemon to have that form of lethality. You can pick up a gun and start shooting it with no training at all.

With no training, people tend to be rubbish at shooting other people. Pokémon can shoot lightning at people or punch them with enormous force or just bite them with their giant teeth without any training whatsoever.

they became dominant in real life to begin with; why would that change?

Firearm dominance would be different if pokémon existed. This is the discussion we are having.

 

[Ereshkigal]

No, you can't, not because it's physically impossible, but because it's prohibitively expensive to clone millions of large animals.

Who said anything about cloning? Think more "factory farm breeding" instead.

Yes, and? If one were a criminal seeking to intimidate, then dangerous pokémon can be taken anywhere you could take a handgun.

Only the small ones. If you're inside an elevator, you can't exactly deploy an Onyx and expect to live to tell the tale. But, on the other hand, you can use an assault rifle in that location. Granted, it wouldn't be very smart because you'd be rendered completely deaf and risk being killed by ricochets...

I think they would, mate. I really do.

Fair enough.

You don't need a permit to buy a gun in most states. Several states don't require you to have a permit to carry a handgun either. Come off it.

I'll concede on that point, but there is a problem we both overlooked: Guess where the majority of the American population lives?

So, to a degree, we're both wrong XD

Most people don't live in those conditions, and would shit themselves if faced with one in ordinary circumstances. Remember I'm talking about this analogously with pokémon being used to intimidate people. Hell, the "you can't even shoot them" thing is a point in favour of my perspective, surely?

You can't shoot them with a pistol. Shotguns are common weapons in America because they are effective against the most common type of bear, as well as a number of other animals. It's also probably (I'm guessing here; I don't feel like looking it up) why our military has a long history of using them. We also have much larger weapons for animals that resist shotguns, including anti-tank rifles that are sometimes used on polar bears. Also, most animals will run when they hear a firearm going off regardless of size, so a pistol can be surprisingly effective for scaring animals away without killing them (load it with blanks to be doubly certain).

And, actually, most people in Europe don't live in those conditions. I know we get wild bears, and sometimes even wild cougars, wandering into cities in several spots of the U.S. In fact, it barely even registers as news when it happens, resulting in stories like this one. It also sometimes results in rather humorous Youtube vids, like this one. But all in all, that's about the level of seriousness I've ever seen anyone treat it outside of a video game.

Note: Mountain lions are cougars. We just have two names for them for some odd reason.

Lots of people grow up with teddy bears. Doesn't mean they won't feel fear if they see a grizzly. Or an ursaring.

Grizzlies are not that intimidating in real life. You would think a creature that massive and powerful would have a much scarier presence in general, but meeting one in-person reveals they really don't. To the point most of the safety advice related to bears is reminding people bears are actually dangerous. As long as you don't surprise one, feed it, or get near its cubs you should be fine. If it gets agitated, just back away slowly with your hands up and nothing will happen. But, for the most part, "treat it like it's a stranger instead of an animal" is the basis of the advice.

With no training, people tend to be rubbish at shooting other people. Pokémon can shoot lightning at people or punch them with enormous force or just bite them with their giant teeth without any training whatsoever.

And explosives can kill people with no training at all. It doesn't take much effort to figure out how to use a detonator or pull a pin. That doesn't change the fact that actually having explosives or Pokemon requires far more training and experience than shooting a gun does. If you don't know how to make a bomb, you can't make an explosive; if you don't know how to feed a Pokemon, you can't have one that will fight for you. Yet, you don't need to know anything at all about shooting or firearm operation to still kill people with a gun.

Firearm dominance would be different if pokémon existed. This is the discussion we are having.

I'm not seeing any reason they would be. Sure, it would be another item people have common access to; that applies as well to knives, explosives, poison, blunt objects, vehicles, etc.

Doesn't the UK have a problem with people illegally importing guns just to shoot others with? Last I heard, gun-related violence and deaths were on the rise there. I would think that if simple access to options with as much effectiveness were enough, you wouldn't have that problem.