You have a gun with one bullet...

[TheTurtleMan]

World Hunger easily. What's worse, being shot to death or slowly and painfully starving? And despite what some people may think, there are reasons that a lot of wars are fought, not wars like Vietnam or Iraq but think about revolutionary wars. They are fought often because of poor or tyrannical leadership. Without war it means that people would just get stomped on by the dictators without resistance.

Also you would never kill yourself in this scenario because then how would you know that Steve the magic gun actually went through with his promise for world peace and no starvation?

 

[Whyso]

beat them both to death?

 

[sheah1]

Shoot world war. Boom, world hunger's power is now halved.

 

[8bitlove2a03]

I shoot myself. Nothing of value is lost.

 

[Roamin11]

Myself, because hell life is too crazy and stressful right now, maybe I'll be lucky and reincarnate as a butterfly, live a short but blissful life among flowers! And that 100 year time to stop it all would make me an hero wouldn't it?

 

[Slayer_2]

Get me a .50 caliber handgun and I'll line up a shot on both of their windpipes. Otherwise, I'd shoot world hunger, since it causes half the wars.

 

[Arfonious]

Personally I would want to shoot America but as it wasn't one of the options I would go for World Hunger

 

[TheIronRuler]

You have a gun with one bullet. Infront of you are two people, World Hunger and World War. Shooting World Hunger will stop world hunger, shooting World War will stop all war, and shooting YOURSELF with stop them both for 100 years.

However, shooting World Hunger will make World War more powerful and vice versa, shooting yourself does not.

Which one do you shoot?

.
Simple but effective. Take out the bullet and jam it into their heads, one at a time. Two birds for one stone!

 

[Epyon94]

War if I had to, cause food is the main stoping block for most populations.
Curing world hunger would most likely cause a population boom, resulting in a sigificant decrease in the sustainability of our continued life on this planet in the long term regardless of war.

 

[Lunar Templar]

easy easy

shoot world war, and while hunger is staring at the mess, put a knife in it (no one said nothing about NOT having a knife)

 

[Connor Lonske]

I'm torn between firing at the ground or myself.

If I fire at myself, the problems will be fixed and the world will be happy, but if I fire at the ground and kill no one, then we'll likely be stuck at a constant, no world war and the current amount of World Hunger, or at least by OP's logic.

Who am I kidding, I'm a bad shot, I'll miss.

 

[LittleChone]

Threaten them both to stop before I have to choose which one of them gets shot.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

World Hunger. Because a war now and then is good for people. But hunger sucks. I'd kill myself if it meant PERMANENT end to both hunger and war, but 100 years is nothing, really.

 

[retyopy]

World war, because then we can focus on world hunger instead of fighting.

 

[Pearwood]

I'd shoot hunger, without war demanding society change we'd still have women without jobs, stuff like that. Who knows what war will necessitate in the future that can be seen as worth it a few decades down the line?

 

[toastmaster2k8]

Why Fire it at all? Zombies might show up..

 

[PunkRex]

Line them both up.

*ding* Thats an acheivement.

Hunger, as you could argue that some wars are nescessary.

 

[bulbasaur765]

I would shoot World Hunger. I can't imagine a world without conflict. Plus, if I shot War, then Hunger would lead to even more conflict over resources which would defeat the purpose of shooting either one in the first place.

 

[Sethzard]

World hunger, human's can't live without war, it's in our nature.

 

[darthotaku]

world hunger. war is something we'll never get rid of, but world hunger is a problem we can theoretically solve.