They use blasters because they can hold significantly more rounds than a projectile weapon. Also, blaster bolts move that slow because it makes for a better movie if we can see them. In reality they would be invisible like bullets. Also, I know there would be overheating concerns, but what about continuous fire? That's way better than an automatic weapon, and some of the tanks and artillery in Star Wars already have it. That, if anything, would make energy more effective than a projectile. There's also that whole thing about not having to order giant shipments of ammo. An army armed with energy weapons can reload at an electrical outlet.
Also, Jedi use swords because swords are cool and artistic. There is no martial function of the sword, even in close combat, that cannot be improved upon by a projectile weapon. Sure you can argue about blocking bolts, etc., but I don't buy it. If they can do that much with a stick then imagine how much they could do with the Star Wars equivalent of an Uzi in one hand and a variation on a Gungan shield in the other. It would be insane domination.
You know what? I'm going to make two exceptions. 1. Swords are good for fighting people with other swords. You can't block an energy sword with your gun stock. 2. Also, swords can dispatch multiple enemies who are in close proximity while guns can only handle one person at a time. But then why would someone who has a gun stand in close proximity to you?
P.S. I saw a Samurai master on TV who could cut a bullet in half with the edge of a katana sword, a feat even greater than what we have seen Jedi do, but I don't think he could do it for multiple shots in succession.
Last edited by Klw; 03-28-2011 at 06:47 PM.