You have a gun with one bullet...

[Lekonua]

War. Then we can start spending all our money on feeding people instead of killing them, and working on space colonization to take care of the inevitable population issues that would ensue.

 

[Screamarie]

I wouldn't shoot anything. One-hundred years is a relatively short time in the grand scheme of history so why cut my life short for only about 1 generation of people when if I don't do anything, life just continues as it has been. Now if this ended war and hunger forever well...then I'd have a dilemma...and probably still wouldn't shoot anything because I don't want to die.

 

[Wyld Fyre]

Self... needs of the many and all that.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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?

None of the three. If humanity can't solve these problems itself, then we don't deserve an "easy way out" choice.
Fuck that.

 

[strangemoose]

i'd shoot toby

 

[OrenjiJusu]

Shoot world hunger, beat world war to death with empty gun, eat gun. All problems solved.

 

[mega48man]

awwww fuck, i hate these questions but i love them to, like batman and catwoman.

i'd shoot world hunger. if i could give hope to millions of people in 3rd countries, giving them something to fight for, then maybe on the other side of wars and conflicts there will be a brighter tomorrow. should i start singing 'when tomorrow comes' from les mis? maybe not quite yet.

shooting myself though....realistically, no way in hell but ideally, that 100 years of peace and prosperity for the whole world might lead to a stable and more peaceful future. but knowing mankind, i doubt we'd even get through the 100 years i was promised for my own death.

can't i just shoot justin bieber instead?

 

[DarkRyter]

Line them both up.

Congratulations. You have won motherfuckin everything.

 

[Jedoro]

Hmm... I'm going to be a dick and shoot the air. Yes, take that air, never liked it anyway!

Then air dies, and we all suffocate. Thanks.

OT: Hunger, because when I'm wandering the post-apocalyptic wasteland, it'll be nice to know I'll always have something to eat.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't see how stopping world war would make world hunger more of a problem, unless the reason the world stops fighting is because hey, screw food.

Can I shoot Stupidity instead? That would fix both.

That sounds like a better plan to me.

 

[SilentCom]

I would end war. Without war, people will be more willing to cooperate and end world hunger. Also, without war people wouldn't be spending trillions of dollars every year on weapons of war. All that money could go toward food and other necessities.

Also, I wouldn't shoot myself because 100 years isn't that long compared to human history. I find it better to attack the source of a problem than alleviate the symptoms temporarily.

 

[snagli]

World War at least taught us some useful things. Shooting Hunger is the obvious choice for me, but because I've never handled a gun before I'd probably accidentally shoot Happiness or something.

 

[Matt9102]

I would save the bullet. As sad as it may be, hunger keeps population in check, and so does war, albeit in very bad ways. We are already over-populating, and China has the right ideas. However, China is still pretty corrupt.

 

[Charles McGuffin]

Myself. That would be the easiest way, but if you should kill World War, doesn't that mean World Peace and a more likely way to find and a "cure" for world hunger.

But a lot of people make their money off of war. So if we get rid of war at all, every one in every army would loose their jobs.

But we would save a lot of tax money.

If we would kill hunger... we would still kill each other over a lot of different things.

But I also have to think of MGS4, which leads to a Powerpuff Girls song: "War, War, War, WAR , WAR! Warwarwar, keeps the world go round."

I'll have to think over this one and come back.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Any of those three option would cause world population to explode far faster than world governments could come up with and implement any solution, causing cataclysmic social collapse and sending what's left of humanity by the end of it back to the dark ages.

People may suck, but we suck for a good reason folks...

 

[mireko]

Fuck that, I'd use it to kill that ************ Thomas. Yeah. Yeah, that guy.

 

[jimahaff]

I line their heads up and shoot through both of them.

Line them both up.

Le gasp-you ninja-ed me.

But I would probably throw my own head into the line up, because I really don't want to deal with being the guy that ended world hunger and all war.

Two reasons.

1. I Hate Paparazzi and everything they stand for.

2. How can I top ending world hunger and all war! I can't that's how. So for the rest of my life I have to put up with people expecting me to also be the first person to set foot no mars, or to cure cancer, or all diseases for that matter. I would practicly wake up to people asking me how I am going to make the world even better. And when I spend all day eating Cheetos and playing video games, they would try to lynch me for "wasting the brilliant mind" that ended world hunger and all war. Because I sure as hell didn't tell the world I ended world hunger and all war by committing a double homicide.

 

[Mariakko]

World hunger, If World war becomes so powerful as to unleash WWIII then so be it. We have too many humans anyway.

 

[Faladorian]

Can I shoot Stupidity instead? That would fix both.

I'm gonna make this my answer.

I hope by shooting Stupidity I'm also shooting Naivete, because they're two sides of the same coin.

 

[brainslurper]

I have a new one.
World hunger, World War, and Origin.
Sorry hungry people and soldiers, this is for the good of humanity...