Schradinger said
They didn't use bullets in the movies. The mechanics of blocking a bullet with a lightsaber are somewhat less forgiving than those of blocking a blaster bolt, and even if they manage it, they've still got a spray of molten mist to deal with.And like I said, even if it didn't kill them (and it usually took a lot more than one bullet to get the job done), it broke their focus on their prep and forced them to devote their energies to a defense instead of their attack.
This is why kinetic weapons are superior to silly energy weapons.
Many writers do an excellent job of devising interesting sounding new weapons and equipment. Blasters, phasers, disrupters, lightsabres, ect. However, what many writers do not consider is the full impact of the weapons in a combat environment. A weapon that fires once and takes a minute or two to recharge before it can fire again is little better than a seventeen hundreds era musket. The bearer of that weapon will be in big trouble if he/she must face someone with say, a bolt action rifle which can be fired much more frequently. Even worse if they have to face someone with a submachine gun. (I think a certain character in the CS list has a advanced weapon like this, they know who they are.)
Thus you end up with the simple question of how would Luke Skywalker, armed with a light saber deal with an attacker armed with a mac-10 or Uzi? What about two attackers armed with Uzi's?
