|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: You are hopeless...
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 05:52:12 pm EST (Viewed 165 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I'm kinda ticked off by this DISBELIEF that Thor is NOT bullet-proof...
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:01:43 pm EST (Viewed 386 times)
Quote:I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "proof" and resistant. If you say that Thor is bulletproof, that means no bullet can ever penetrate his skin. So a 50 cal uranium slug, or let's just say adamantium even, is fired from a gun worthy of Cable, does that mean it's no threat to Thor? Also, I think that when you say bulletproof, it also means that bullets won't hurt him at all. Just because they can't penetrate his skin doesn't mean they won't sting.
Quote:You're exactly right! The debate should be if Thor is bullet-proof, or maybe just resitant to bullets. Some here are arguing that he could be killed by an ordinary conventional bullets- a la Wonder Woman. Now, conventional wisdom would tell you that a Heat-Seeking Missile has more destructive fire-power, and could just as easily pentrate an armored Tank as well 50 cal Uraniun slug.. Even further, a Gigantic Mortar Shell that could rip a Tank to shreds and could tear a gaping hole in the side of a BATTLE CRUISER- has potentially far more penetrating power than a 50 CA Uraniun slug- see Thor-#117..
First, to answer many here, I think it was quite obvious in this discussion that the use of "bullet-proof" had in mind 21th century conventional human bullets. Not super-duper indestructible and extraterrestrial ammunition that travel at many times the speed of light and beyond. Nobody is totally bullet-proof period, but many are bullet-proof by our current human standards.
Second, as far as I'm concerned, it was only Thor's past that was suspicious in regard to him being "bullet-proof". Marvel seem to have made their mind once his new series began.
Finally, as you have been told SEVERAL times now, conventional wisdom using heat-seeking missiles argumentation is irrelevant in this topic. Utterly so. The same goes for the "explicit" excuse since those excuses weren't always there to begin with and for some characters they still aren't.