The credit crunch in Yugoslavia was merely the removal of duct-tape holding together a country that wasn't supposed to be, due largely to political imbalances in favor of ethnic Serbs. Greece, with less ethnic homogeneity than Japan, hasn't had anything anywhere remotely resembling the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.

What you're describing simply will never happen. If anything, global economic collapse based around sovereign debt is likely to just lead to the countries declaring Sovereign Debt Jubilee, where everyone just writes off everyone else and starts over again.

Japan's healthcare wouldn't really fall that badly anyway, as their healthcare is government run but largely funded outside the government budget, as you still have to make insurance payments commensurate with your level of income, but those are just insurance payments, and can't be diverted to, say, farm subsidies (which are a huge problem in Japan anyway)

I didn't know that about Japanese health care. That being said, I was not proposing that Japan develop ethnic divisions, I was merely pointing out that extreme economic hardship would result in serious issues and yes, large scale violence. Japan's debt is unpayable and as it continues to balloon outward, it becomes evident that it is not a worthwhile investment. Japan is being sustained by outside sources and if that ever changed then they would be screwed. If every nation wrote off their debt and started over then Japan would still be completely unable to balance their budget leading to serious hardship. Also, what if there were serious economic issues that arose elsewhere or worse yet, large scale war? Either one of these scenarios or any other situation that would threaten the flow of credit could prove disastrous to the Japanese. It is not desirable for an economy to remain on perpetual life support, this really is not sustainable, at least not forever.

in that case all guns should be band because they all kill. i seriously doubt a bill with any gun being band would fly with the (yes they are good for 1 thing) republicans. 

@xwan i understand that, but assult riffles aren't the only guns that can cause this kind of damage. no gun should be exempt. didn't Jovan Belcher from the Kansas City Chiefs kill his girlfriend and then himself with a hand gun?

automatic shotguns can make you unrecognizable, so if any gun can do it, ban them all, don't be selective. yea sure you can't get rid of all the crazies, but im not responsible for anyones actions but my own. i feel for those who have experianced loss do to these tragedies, butt banning assult riffles won't stop mass murder, or school shootings.

but it will help alot. As far as people living right now americans will probably throw their arms up and have a cry. but if guns are banned the next generation will not have grown up with them or been around them which as you can see compared to most other countries in the world works and severely lowers those kinds of things happening.

Care to provide real life evidence to support your points?

Law-abiding citizens without a history of violence that purchase their firearms legally are far less likely to commit a crime with the aforementioned firearm than you would believe. Again, the problem is not with gun ownership but those who would illegally obtain a firearm with the intent to commit crime.

Gun prohibition will not necessarily make it more difficult for criminals to access guns. Australia is a real world example that contradicts this concept. Additionally, America has far more guns with over two hundred million currently in circulation, care to explain how we are to eliminate all of them?

Simply put, you would eliminate far more gun violence if you simply addressed the underlying issues, namely gang participation. This would be far easier to achieve and would actually resolve not only the much gun violence, but also organized crime in general.