Justifying the Lack of Use w/ Firearms in a Future/Fantasy Setting

I'll just begin with the setting: about a thousand years from this year [2017] in respective terms. Backstory is there was a great awakening that granted the ability of magic to generally everyone who existed. Humans spread out throughout the galaxy, and factions/kingdoms/democracies/empires are handled very similarly in a way you could characterize as "game of thrones in space" [closest analogy I could think of.]

I'm trying to have everything make general sense as far as fantasy goes, and in it, guns are almost universally not used for combat. They are used for hunting and recreation, and that's it. Only a few are able to use firearms for combat--generally meaning they can charge their weapon enough to do relative damage to another person due to their natural ability in magic.

With that in mind, I want to figure out how to justify why firearms aren't useful anymore in regards to combat. It should be a grounded explanation, and I can't have it be "the wizards told us to" since this is a world where having the edge means everything to people.

Firearms did exist, and were as popular as they were now. So to say that they are thus hard to obtain does not work. A ban on firearms would also not work. This should come down to the simple fact that rather than a firearm, you're more likely to succeed using a sword/spear/etc.

Currently, the most of my ideas have come off of each person having a force shield [a type of barrier each person innately has to defend against other magical attacks, instead of being directly obliterated by another.] Perhaps it could function to protect oneself against fast moving projectiles--and is barely affected by the use of physical attacks like non-magic explosives or bullets.

I either want to flesh this idea out or come up with one that seems far more grounded and makes sense. Any ideas?

 

Well, i like to help, but i have some questions

By this, do you mean that some people are more talented than others when it comes to using magic? Or does it mean every person has different kinds of magic? Also, does that mean guns don't use bullets anymore?

Why? It's supposed to be the other way around, unless it has something to do with your magic system.

For the lack of use of firearms, can't you just make the reason the obsolescence of guns? Like if you have magic, why use guns?

 

Possible timeline:
1. All weapons became useless against humans following the emergence of magic. (The awakening gave humans a type of magical forcefield against past weapons/ they were able to easily manipulate the matter old weapons were made of/ They could heal themselves too easily from the damage that was done by the available weapons)
2. They discovered elements uncontrollable by magic/ that could pierce the forcefields/ were harder for wizards to heal from.
3. This element is extremely rare / hard to get ahold of.
4. They initially developed it into bullets, but because of the element's scarcity they had to switch to other weapons.
5. Swords, spears, and arrows are reusable
6. Some bullets shaped from the element still exist but are extraordinarily hard to come by and do little good in battle because of how limited in supply they are.
7. Most people engaging in combat ended up settling for swords/ spears/ arrows crafted from this element.

 

So far, I've developed it as this:

All people are easily able to use an ability that would generally be referred to as an arcane shield. This protects them from magical and physical attacks--but cannot directly block out another living being from entering. These are essentially bubbles that surround a person, and join together when two opponents are engaged against one another.

Physical attacks such as traditional bombs, explosives, and projectiles like bullets cannot pass through these shields without being stopped. Physical attacks are far easier to defend against than magical, ergo one can block bullets for extensive amounts of times, while they will have more difficulty in defending against other arcane attacks. Generally speaking, pure-arcane battles will involve both attacking the opponent's arcane shield, and defending with one's own.

The bubble is not visible, and is usually not active unless the user is using that ability [which is not necessarily difficult.]

What do you think of this idea? It's currently the best explanation I have in mind as far as disabling the use of firearms and missiles--as well as give a way to justify defense in a world where any common person can summon elemental attacks and/or augment their abilities in order to perform a task.

 

Humans could also have developed some sort of taboo against using firearms against other people. Sort of like taking up the feeling that firearms are dirty and inhumane and aren't fit for use on people and using them in such a way is a great dishonour.

 

It's specifically said that people shall do whatever it takes to get the edge, so to do this would contradict how grounded the system is when one could use it simply because they wanted to. Although using nuclear bombs is considered taboo and inhumane, you damn well know that if the US could use it to win a war that could end in their destruction, they surely would.

View it as a Game of Thrones scenario where while honor is certainly appealing and almost appears to be important, many people simply ignore it and fight to win. Honor in an honorless setting.

 

Ok from what you've said, i think that guns are still useful if used at point blank range. Even though it cannot penetrate the arcane shield, guns still can be used when someone enters the other person's "arcane bubble" first, then shoots the person in the face. From the way i see it, bombs and explosives may be used less, but guns are still useful.

 

If the bubble needs to be activated then guns are actually even more viable, specifically for stealth attacks. If I want to assassinate someone, am I going to cast magic at them, either burning them or drowning them or crushing them in the earth, all of which they can become aware of, and attempt to counter, or, am I going to sit with a rifle half a mile away and shoot them using a projectile that moves faster than the sound that indicates where it is? Guns would likely fall out of mainstream use, if the majority of the population had magic, but they'd still exist as specialist tools. However, my question then becomes why don't people just tune the force fields they create to stop low-velocity attacks as well, making physical weapons obsolete as well.

 

As I said, a person cannot stop another living being from entering their bubble, so if the person does have a weapon of their own, they cannot stop a person from bringing that in.

And as far as guns are considered, they are actually used as assassination tools. The difference is that most people--if any--use beam cannons [essentially magic laser muskets] whereas with a projectile firearm they would take time to hit their target, it is almost instant.

When in such a close proximity--we're talking two or three feet here--melee definitely takes the cake in close combat fighting. If you've ever heard of the 21 foot rule, it's essentially the idea that a man may reach you and stab you before you can really shoot him and stop him.

Also, on a side note, the average trained soldier have the capabilities to basically deflect projectiles with their weapons if that need ever arose. Not due to raw reflexes, but to the prediction and sensory abilities that are taught to nearly everyone. Therefore, assassinations are a lot less common with firearms, since people will usually get a "spidey-sense" type of deal before anything happens.

 

In other words, no one would use something so primitive as a firearm when they already have superior weaponry.

That might be going a bit far, but that's just me. You're making everyone out to be superhuman - which is fine - but in a setting where everyone's special, how does the MC stand out?

 

Overall I don't find it really plausible (nor fun in my opinion) that people will completely stop using weapons. Whilst magic coming into reality would be a big thing people would still find use in weapons whether it be because they are good marksman but because weapons are generally pretty useful. The only way I could think is, like you said, to have personal force fields that would keep most projectiles at bay but chances are people will find a way to supercharge their firearms in order to get past the force fields and more than likely there will be new guns that may run off magic themselves. If you want to write fantasy then write fantasy but if you are writing Science Fantasy then these things need to be realistically looked into and not just thrown out because "it doesn't fit the story" because then readers will have tons of questions of "if this is the future where is this and why aren't these used" et cetera.

 

Guns are inherently more powerful than most handheld weapons because they were designed to be, hence the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight". They evolved war into what it is today. If you want to turn your magic into a mechanic of war to replace firearms, then you need to design it to have just as much impact.

As @Wolf Daemon stated, it's not likely that a weapon category will stop being used entirely once a new and apparently more advanced weapon breaks water. Even in the advent of the firearm, due to the constraints of ammunition requirements, and the lack of versatility at close range, melee weapons such as swords, knives, or bayonets were a viable fallback option. That being said, a sword couldn't stop a long range bullet or bead, and has strength requisites that many firearms do not.

In terms of magic abilities, in order to outperform a firearm, you'll need to take cues from what a firearm does, make them better, then apply that to your magic. If a gun requires ammunition, then perhaps your magic needs to supplant that requirement with one more easily managed. Firearms are powerful, but they require a good deal of practice to become proficient and consistent in their use, so maybe your magic is a much easier to learn, or doesn't require practice to perform decently (scary thought).

 

Here's my idea;

Let's say that magic can easily block normal weapons, both swords and firearms, and these weapons have to be made using the same magic. The reason why firearms are used is that they require an especially complex form of magic which takes years to master, and therefore only the most skilled possess firearms. Since making firearms is more complex and risky (due to the use of magic in creating them), swords and blades have become a more common weapon because they are easier to produce.

 

As an author, I love the idea of characters mixing firearms and magic in Urban Fantasy / Space Fantasy combat. As an author, you seem not to like this idea.

This means that you have a different perspective of the world than I do, and narrowing down your perspective of the real world – narrowing down why you want your fictional world to be different from the real world in this way – will help you narrow down how to make this happen in-story.

The "Watsonian" view looks at the story in terms of the characters' motivations, the "Doylist" view looks at the story in terms of the author's motivations

This terminology refers to the Sherlock Holmes stories: written by Arthur Conan Doyle in the real world as fiction (out-of-story), but written as though they were written by John Watson as a non-fictional account of something he actually witnessed (in-story)​

and I've found that whenever I'm having trouble with a story from a purely-Watsonian perspective, I go back to the Doylist look at why I'm writing the story in a certain way, and that helps me come up with a Watsonian explanation to go with the Doylist.

You want a Space Fantasy world with little to no use of firearms, and you're having trouble coming up with an in-story Watsonian explanation for this. What is your out-of-story Doylist explanation?

You know how cheetahs can run at 70 mph, the fastest of any animal that lives on land? They can only sustain this for 20 seconds. If their prey can evade them for 20 seconds, the prey are going to escape.

Humans, on the other hand, are long-distance runners. Supremely efficient long-distance runners. When our prey get tired, we don't. When our prey have to stop moving, we don't. When our prey pass out from exhaustion and heat stroke, we don't

I can think of 3 animals in the natural world that can run longer than we can (the ostrich, the camel, and the pronghorn antelope).

Cheetahs hunt by sneaking up as close as possible to their prey before running because they can only run for 20 seconds. Early humans hunted by scaring our prey – drawing attention to ourselves with fire and with war-cries and with thrown rocks – into running themselves to exhaustion. Even if it took hours, they would have to stop eventually, and we wouldn't.

Humans are the Terminators of the natural world. When you read a "mundane" story about "mundane" humans (like a murder mystery), you are reading about a setting where everybody is built with the superpower of being able to run for an incredibly long time over incredibly long distances. And yet, despite everybody being built for this superpower, the stories about them are still interesting

 

For the first one, it's a matter of distance, being at ranged is generally better for staying alive.

If you want rid of guns, why not just remove beam cannons so that it's firearms, and have that field around. Otherwise, guns will be used no matter what.

 

That's not even a possibility now.

 

It could be a minor incantation to cause the gunpowder to ignite while the rounds are still in the magazine/chamber. They would be easy to disable and and make dangerous to the user in combat. Cause an obstruction within the barrel to appear, warp the barrel, bind the firing pin in place, etc. through simple magic. Of course, some of this would have other consequences for anyone desiring to do damage to other machinery--which would affect society.

But as such, it would make carrying/using a firearm in combat not worth the risk.

 

Again, read the above.
Firearms are still entirely viable. They are still used for hunting and sport. So this is out.

And yes, being at range is easier to stay alive. Yet again, you can't fight at range unless you're very powerful. Since battles are fought with army-to-army, being at this type of range does no good, as soldiers will have their arcane shields up to defend against oncoming magic anyway.

 

Why did you even add beam cannons if they were not/never viable for war? That's where the technologies for killing people develop.

 

I did read above. Hunting is different than combat. In combat, people would be trying to kill you any way possible. Thus, if magic could make a firearm too dangerous to have when compared to its advantages. Hunting, that normally wouldn't be happening. Just my input. It's your story.

 

Beam cannons were initially used years back--when magic first came up to society--until people learned to better defend theirselves against others' magic and firearms. Ergo, now they're only really used for hunting and sport. They're preferred over normal firearms since they don't require physical ammunition and hit their target instantly.

I see what you mean. I'm trying to avoid those kind of excuses however, since it's like the argument for why Jedi don't just use the force to turn the other person's lightsaber off. When you can make firearms unreliable through some convoluted magic, who's to say you can't do it with swords and whatnot?

 

When the majority (if not all) the people in this thread are at odds with the whole "almost no firearms" due to it making little to no sense it is obvious that you have to do some rethinking because your readers will feel the same.

 

If they don't serve a plot relevant purpose, I'd suggest ignoring them.