Don’t be tempted to go down the ‘we won the Battle of Britain so the Spit is better’ route etc as that would have to encompass differening tactics, equipment (ground radar plotting), doctrin, supporting logistics, the fact it was fought over our country (range disadvatage to Luftwaffe) etc.
The argument is fallable, example the Spits dominated BoB, but 109s held their own over the desert for a while.

The basic question is, was the 109 a better aircraft than the Spitfire?
Both were highly developed and saw entire war service and post-war service, and even non combat flight characteristics and manufacturing quality etc must be considered in such a debate.

You are right in what you say, other than the fact that the Spitfire & Hurricane were designed as interceptors, one can only surmise that the 109 was designed as an attacker, purely because it didn’t have a defensive role to fullfill; if you were to design an attack A/C, you would surely provide it with sufficient fuel space to carry out that role.

I think what he means, is that during his extensive fishing forays into the depths of the English countryside, he was not aware of anyone shooting vermin with a shotgun, therefore it doesn’t happen.

When was the last time you saw a dead kingfisher, 49 years in the countryside, and I’ve never seen one; do they live forever?

Sorry, what planet have you spent the majority of those 42 years on?

What do they use on a moving target then?

I think Alex Henshaw’s thoughts on the subject, are worthy of note; the Hurricane was a good A/C but it couldn’t have won the battle on it’s own, the Spitfire (fielded in the same strength) could have.

Quite right, I remember Neil Young saying something like, Charlie wasn’t a bad kinda guy, although his songs were crap, about Charles Manson….

Stuart Gowans – “Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose.” I which case we are in agreement, because that was the point I was trying to make in response to yours. In the wrong hands there are dozens of implements and tools which can cause serious injury or death.

But that is no argument for banning them.

And if you read my posts on this subject properly, you will see that I am not suggesting banning anything.

Unfortunately your comparisons are unhelpful because each of the items you mention, and man y others, has the power to kill in the wrong hands. Guns are made to shoot ammunition. That ammunition might be directed at an inanimate target, a flying piece of clay or an animal for sport. It might also, in the wrong hands, be used to kill another human being, in peacetime. They are not specifically and solely made to kill.

To reiterate, from inception they were designed to kill; what was the long bow designed for? and what are they used for now?

The fact that most guns are taylored to sporting styles of shooting, makes no difference; my Martini Henry was made for the British army in about 1870 to shoot Zulu’s, subsequently rebarrelled to a small calibre, it had the stock shortened, and was issued to cadets for target practice, it is now used for vermin control.

Anything wielded in anger can be seen as an offensive weapon, regardless of its original purpose.

“What sort of little sh*t beckons someone over to his car,then shoots them in the face” ?

The same kind that kills children to get back at society.

I believe there is provision in the firearns act for a collector of guns, but they aren’t licenced to hold amunition.