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.
You have a gun with one bullet...
- Thread starter TopHatsaur
- Start date
Recommended Videos
world hunger. war is something we'll never get rid of, but world hunger is a problem we can theoretically solve.
Myself. Honestly, chances are Earth won't survive 100 years from now, so ... if humanity manages to get off Earth in the meantime, fine, then we won't have world issues to deal with anymore anyways ... And if humanity doesn't, the problem is solved through us not existing anymore ... Yep ... 100 years is fine to solve the problems either way, so ... I'd definitely shoot myself.
I'd go for hunger. I think that wars can be very beneficial to society. Say what you want about WW2, but thanks to it everything advanced much quicker than it would in time of peace - both society and science.
world war.
by removing war we can actually deal with the problems in places like the middle east and africa, including hunger and poverty.
by removing war we can actually deal with the problems in places like the middle east and africa, including hunger and poverty.
I would probably shoot myself in the left foot as well, because even if I'm a cripple for life, I don't die and I can still play (most) video games...
I would shoot the parent that spawned them this making sure no further problems are brought into the world
Alternatively This is the revolver from serious Sam and I have unlimited bullets! problem solved!
Alternatively This is the revolver from serious Sam and I have unlimited bullets! problem solved!
As controversial as it is, I'd have to save the bullet. Those two things, while awful as they are, are helping to keep our exploding population in check. If either of them was eliminated, we'd have no room left and shit would get real.
What if the bullet is only a .22 or some other calibur that has the power to smash through the bone of the skull once, and do horrible damage to the brain, but stop once it hits the other side?MrSean said:Line them both up.
OT: Shoot into the ceiling.
If I shoot hunger, war escalating into WW3 will not be pretty and we are having fewer and fewer wars as a satistical trend and the result of the increased economic interdependance.
If I shoot war, increasing the world food crisis will crash the world's economies at rising food prices and kill to many people to count.
100 years is no where near as long as permanently on the grand scheme of things, so in that situation, I both literally and figuratively dodge the bullet.
As for the other 2...War is flashy, and certainly terrible, but the boring logistics of food affects about %15 of the population. Truth be told, shot by a bullet or starve to death, your dead either way. Id get rid of hunger. A lot of secondary problems will follow suit.
As for the other 2...War is flashy, and certainly terrible, but the boring logistics of food affects about %15 of the population. Truth be told, shot by a bullet or starve to death, your dead either way. Id get rid of hunger. A lot of secondary problems will follow suit.
Woah now you have a problem with Affleck? Please, do come and take a stroll with me in to this back alleyway...Blue Hero said:
On topic, erm I'd say World War.
Just because, Why not?
I shoot neither.
Instead, I tell them that I will shoot both of them (you never said THEY knew how many bullets I have) if they don't fight to the death. Then I watch them fight and laugh.
I bet War would win that one.
Instead, I tell them that I will shoot both of them (you never said THEY knew how many bullets I have) if they don't fight to the death. Then I watch them fight and laugh.
I bet War would win that one.
You forgot to mention you'd shoot the winner as soon as the fight was over.BaronUberstein said: