Brad Torgersen Explains the Impractical Lightsaber (that looks practical)
Awhile back the conclusion was made by Shamus Young that in real life lightsabers would not be weapons but power tools. I agree. Now leaving aside that the full utility of a laser sword that completely lacks a stun setting and whose default effect upon the human body is insta-amputation and possibly cauterization is only realized when one has mystical powers, laser swords are just more useful when wielded as a tool, not a weapon. One can, without careful control, hurt oneself far more likely and completely than he would someone he i
ntends to harm.
Now lightsabers thus far in on-screen canon lack hilts or cross-guards, more or less similar to various samurai swords, like katana. I do not recall any lightsabers with guards for the users’ hands in the anything from the Marvel Comics, the Expanded Universe, or any of the apocrypha. This may or may be not be much of an issue because when lightsabers’ blades lock they apparently do not slide. I may be wrong about that point.
Recently, and by recently I mean last year the first teaser trailer for the upcoming Star Wars film was released. One of the most contentious and hotly debated features was the lightsaber with the red lightsaber blade hilts. This almost looks practical in that the laser blades could potentially block an attack and protect the hands. This looks like it could happen. It could not happen. Someone could still attack the mechanism itself and slice through, as noted science fiction author Brad Torgersen explains:
those perpendicular shafts would be like huge self-stabby hazards for the wielder. Plus, the second an opponent’s saber beam slides down the crossguard beam, the opponent’s beam hits the mechanism proper, thus slicing *through* the mechanism (and the wielder’s hand) thereby rendering the crossguard pointless.
Remember when I said that the lightsaber is a greater danger to the user than the attacker? This LightBroadsword idea just would not work.
Let us see the upcoming film disprove this point.