Knife Crime

Gun crime has seen a huge decline

Like you said knife crime is a Ever day occasion what is scary because of the physical contact.

But you can't rely on a justice system that doesn't even give justice for Rape victims

I feel legalishing any drug is a dangerous step .the dealers will just bring in more potent Drugs . And cheaper
Look at Mets in America at least we don't have that problem

I've tried to find out just how many apology letters have been issued, but can't find anything. 
What I don't understand is why there are instead of prosecution rather than as well as. 

I still disagree over the sword versus the spear.

The archer though was a game changer. Once it was applied in mass formation (developed by the Normans after their encounters with the Welsh) it effectively became artillery with a range of 200 yards. A greater range than the musket even and with a far greater rate of fire. Had England been able to keep and train large numbers of archers Waterloo would have been over before lunch.

Agincourt was a show piece for the long bow and the latest invention 'the Bodkin' really changed the battle. The French knights believed their armour was impervious to arrows. They marched slowly up the hill and were slaughtered like pigs. 
Yes agree on the rate of fire, though you had to be immensely strong to use one. They had the same range as the crossbow which had a winch and used two men to operate it. One to shield the other while they carried out the slow loading process. 
And again like the rifle, the French refused to adopt the long bow.

I was disappointed by the battle of Waterloo. It was not Wellingtons finest battle (And he was a brilliant General) He won against huge odds but it was more at the sacrifice of thousands of lives than some fantastic strategy. 

Apologies for going off topic RR but...

Agincourt was actually quite late in the 100 years war. Some 80 odd years after Crecy.
It was Crecy that showed the lethality of the longbow.
The French and allied knights felt they were invincible against mere yeomen in their light armour on foot. 

First sending in their hired Genoese crossbow men (without their protective shields which were still on the boats) with wet strings due to the British weather the battle was fought in. Archers could keep their strings dry by simply removing them from their bows to keep them dry (the origin of the phrase keeping it under your hat) while the crossbow was far more difficult to unstring.
So when the crossbowmen advanced they found they were outranged by the longbows of the English and without their Pavise (shield) for protection they were decimated and fled. The French knights suspecting treachery then cut them down as they fled.

After that the French sent wave after wave of cavalry charges up a wet and slippery slope to be massacred in their thousands by a hail of arrows. Many of the great heads of European aristocracy including kings were killed without even reaching the English men at arms.
It was not just a victory for the archer but also the new tactic of dismounting and fighting from a defensive position (learned by Edward I in his defeats against the Scots led by the likes of William Wallace, Braveheart).

The amazing thing is that the French never seemed to learn from this and suffered defeat after defeat against the English using the same failed tactics right up to Agincourt and beyond.
It was not until the development of gunpowder and cannon brought an end to the era of castles that the French were finally able to kick the English out of France (apart from Calais which we held for almost 300 years).

Napoleon no longer had some of his best officers and didn't have the command structure he was used to. This meant he was less able to control the battle through discipline and manoeuvre as he had in his great victories. He may have had large numbers of well armed soldiers but he no longer had a great army.