As we all know Avada Kedavra is the one and only killing curse, the weapon of instant destuction in the wizarding world, the gun, in the muggle world.
Avada Keadvra: With each casting of that deadly spell throughout the Harry Potter books, it descibes the victum being targeted in the chest or head area.
Gun: The use of a gun is most effective in the chest and head area and that is usually where the shot is aimed if the handler of the gun is intending to kill. If a person was to be shot it the leg, the arm, or foot and basically anywhere but the head or chest, then they do not die right away. They would only die if they weren't attended to and bled to death.

That leaves me wondering. Is that the same with Avada Kedavra? If the victum gets hit in the arm or leg will they still instantly die? Or will they survive or temporarily survive like you would if shot with a gun? It seems odd to me if I picture Bellatrix Lestrange for instance, casting Avada Kedavra at Sirius' calf and he just keels over and dies .What are your theories on this?

Hmm... You have a very good theory. Yeah. I think they will instantly die though... Or their leg just might be cut off... But I'm leaning more towards the idea of instantly dieing after getting hit anywhere.

Anyway that got me thinking.

The book says that Avada Kedavra doesn't do any physical damage to the body. Remember how it says that the victims are never marked? (Except for Harry's special case) You might be thinking that Avada Kedavra might mess with the internal organs or something similar in a body but remember in Book 4? Even when muggles try to determine the cause or death (Autopsys and such) the muggle detectives find neither any signs of damage and no signs of any marks. With these clues we can deduce that Avada Kedavra doesn't affect the body, but most likely the soul. I'm not saying that the spell destroys the soul like the dementors kiss, but kind of like seperating the soul from the body or similar.

Not meaning to flame you or anything but these are just my thoughts

I agree with Mrmacbeth. While we've seen cases where just-missed curses cause damage (George Weasley), with AK it seems like it's a binary: you're dead or you're not. Now, you can miss with an AK, but I think if it gets you, you're toast.

You're not flaming me in any way haha. After reading your thoughts I must agree. Thanks guys for your theories on this. It helped alot! But I still find it funny to picture Sirius keeling over dramatically from getting hit with AK in the calf

If the vcurse just kill anyone, i wonder whether the curse would be very hard to learn and use or not? or else everyone would kill each other much easily and you are always in danger of death, if some mental people came out of st. Mungos and cast AK eveyrwhere.

I don't think that if it wasn't hard to learn then everyone would kill each other much easily. It's not very hard to learn how to use a gun, but people don't always live in fear of death, and you don't go around killing anyone who bothers you.

Just because the method for doing something is easy, it doesn't make it easy to do that. There's still the emotional side of it, and the fact that you are taking away someone's life which most people would not want to do (I hope!).

I think that if it hits you then you die. End of story. With a gun I suppose it's different. Guns, while although they are really intended to kill, they kill by injuring you, if you get what I'm saying. The reason they kill you is because they injure you in a way that makes it impossible to heal (like shot in the heart, brain, you know what I mean, without being too grisly ) But AK is meant to just kill you outright... if you get what I'm saying.

Oh boy, that made me laugh haha. Anyway, no AK is not like a gun, you can survive a gunshot but not the AK no matter where you're hit.

And isn't so easy to cast the spell either, remember Dumbledore said it tears your soul apart? (or something along those lines).

I think the AK is more similar to a poison, for example a particular snake's venom, it doesn't matter where you are bit, it'll spread throughout your entire body and kill you instantly.

I'm pretty sure it just tears the soul from the body. As was explained in voldemorts case when he was talking to his death eaters. "ripped from my body" and "less than the meanest ghost" Without horcruxes I'm sure it does the same.

I don't think he was flaming YOU, I think it was me! And yeah, now I remember... Avada Kedavra leaves no marks, then it must instantly kill then.

I think it's pretty clear that Avada Kedavra is the only curse that is instant, unavoidable death. Obviously you have to aim, but I think if it hits you in any part of the body you're dead. Period. Unless you're Harry Potter. (Then you're protected by the most powerful and elemental of all forces: dramatic license.) Other curses can kill. No doubt Sectumsempra can kill if you're hit in the throat with it. A Reductor curse to the face might even be enough to kill. But if Avada Kedavra didn't kill without exception, it wouldn't be as special as it is.

Avada Kedavra affects more of one's soul than one's physical characteristics (internal or external). It does act somewhat like a gun because they both kill, but not really in the same sense.
But that was interesting. Got me thinking.

No, Avada Kedavra isn't like a gun at all. Even if you get hit with a gun, first of all, death isn't nescessarily instantaneous. Also, you could survive if you are shot, as opposed to Avada Kedavra. It does matter where you are hit with a gun, but if you are hit with Avada Kedavra, you die. If it wasn't like that, Harry wouldn't be the only one to have survived a Killing Curse.

Oh, and it is a good point that AK does not leave a physical trace on the body.

Thoughts?

CRW

i think youre wrong becuase they say noone has ever survived it, and lets say your in a duel you cant be 100% accurate so people would have been hit in different places and if noone has survived that suggests that it kills anyway.

I don't think it would be hard to use...which brings an interesting question to mind. There are a few times in the books (bellatrix vs. Mrs. Weasley, etc.) that the good guys are obviously aiming to kill, why do they not use Avada Kedavra? Does using it make you automatically evil, or condemned or something. That would be my guess, except...Snape uses it on Dumbledore when he could have just pushed him off the tower or something. I'm sure he would have found another way to kill him if AK would condemn his soul.

These are my thoughts, what do you think?

No, I think that if it hit the leg or the arm they would instantly die. So know I think it isn't like a gun in that way.

I know this topic kind of died, but i was just reading through some old posts and this one got me thinking a little bit.



I think this is a pretty logical train of though for this issue, but it has me thinking hard...Yes, it is easy to use a gun, and people do not constantly live in fear of being shot and killed. However, the main difference here is that EVERYONE in the wizarding world has a wand. If it is accepted that pretty much all well trained wizards over the age of 15 can pull off an AK given the right circumstances this is a pretty scary thought. Think if everyone walked around with a gun all the time; I know i would be much more scared of being shot. Im not saying no one walks around with guns, but by no means is it normal for people to just have a pistol on them at all times. However, if any trained wizard could do the AK then it would be like everyone in the wizarding community was walking around with a gun all the time. Now, it is a moral issue, and killing someone is not something many people can do without remorse, but if every 17-20 year old could do AK think of the problems that would occur. Sally catches her high school boyfriend cheating on her and in her anger she blasts him with Avada Kedavra, or two friends get into a heated argument and without thinking one Aks the other. These are things that are likely to happen if the AK was not a difficult spell. Im not saying it would happen a lot, but I can almost guarantee that if everyone was walking around with a gun all the time the murder rate would be off the charts compared to what it is now, and if AK isnt an extremely difficult spell than that is essentially the same thing as giving everyone a gun.

To sum it all up I dont think using Avada Kedavra is as easy as using a gun. You probably have to have a large amount of evil inside of you, and you have to really enjoy seeing other people suffer. Using AK may even tear your soul apart....And before you say that Snape used it and he was not evil I will say this; Snape may have been brave and loyal to DD, but he was enthralled by the Dark Arts. He may have loved DD and Lily, but the majority of him was in love with the Dark Arts. Do not forget that he was a DE at one point, and was definitely capable of performing an AK (he may have done it before). He had plenty of evil in his heart to perform the curse, and he also was very focused and could easily train himself to muster up the hatred needed to do it, even on Dumbledore.

well i think a gun would be useful cuz you just need to press the trigger and the bullet is fast but for avada kedavra you have to say it, then it has to form the green light and stuff hahaha oh well sort of

I don't think the Avada Kedavra curse is like a gun at all, because with a gun you don't always have to die- you have like, a 30% chance of living, but with the Avada Kedavra you just die instantly, no exceptions (apart from when the curse rebounded when Voldy was trying to kill Harry in POA and DH, but that was only because of the bit of his soul in Harry, wasn't it?)

And it doesn't matter whar part of the body you point the soul- you would die anyway.
I think the reason why AK doesn't leave a physical mark on the body because it tears up your soul. Not like the Dementors Kiss, which removes the soul.