You have a gun with one bullet...

[Treblaine]

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?

Fire the shot into the ground.

As I know that bullet will stop either of those at a terrible unforeseen cost. It always does.

Remember what "on bullet" did for Franz Ferdinan? I'm quite sure that was to stop something and it started the First World War!

 

[Treblaine]

Shoot world hunger, and then beat war to death with the butt of my pistol.

You FOOL! World War is a tough bastard, you better hit him between the eyes! World Hunger is a weakling, you could probably kill him with your bare hands!

 

[Spawny0908]

Can I shoot Stupidity instead? That would fix both.

I second this idea.

 

[Nemesis729]

Myself... hate my life

 

[Blobpie]

None of the above, why?

War is at an all time low compared to the rest of history.

And we have more than enough food for everyone on the planet! Expect it's all in the first world countries...

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

the poor would stay hungry, the rich would stay rich, ... This is a recipe for a Stalinist dictatorship.

I'm sure whether you're saying that this would cause the poor to rise and create a system like Stalin's Russia or if you are saying Stalin's Russia was bad for the poor.

The first cannot happen for there is no more war if you kill world war. The second was not the case.

No, I'm saying that if the inequalities got that bad then you'd already BE in Stalin's Russia. There's a ruling class, and there's everyone else, and the "everyone else" has no hope of displacing them. No war, remember?

And are you seriously saying that it wasn't the case that Stalin's Russia was bad for the poor? It was one of the most repressive regimes in history, with a bodycount that made pre-WW2 Germany look like a holiday camp in comparison...

 

[Zen Toombs]

Which one do you shoot?

*Bam* I fall over. No questions asked.

Well, one question: would "killing" World Hunger/World War end them for all time? Because if so then I would shoot World Hunger because a lack of Hunger lessens the need for War (less resources to fight over) and better enable people to take care of themselves.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Shoot war then pistol whip hunger to death.

 

[ERROR989]

War. If world Hunger is killed, the world population would be drasicly increased, which would introduce tons of new factors which would eventually lead to a war, ie: Fossil Fuels running out, need for more land, etc

 

[Guffe]

I just change my positin so that they are lined up and do it Angeline Jolie style from Wanted!
I think world Hunger would be the one (well my first opininon goes first of course) beacause that is a lot more lasting problem and with the hunger away I don't think we need war... (I know I am a bit optimisic)

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Line them both up.

Ditto. Or you could just shoot War and beat Hunger to death with the but of your gun, he's starving so he won't put up much of a fight.

 

[Nouw]

World Hunger. At least the soldiers will fight in reasonable conditions this way! Seriously though, war is less common than hunger in the modern day.

 

[Alphakirby]

I will shoot Idiocy, right in it's stupid face. I don't die, world hunger AND war are resolved, I get a fucking medal for thinking outside the box.

 

[PurePareidolia]

Hunger. That essentially means setting up instant infrastructure and supply lines to ensure a reasonable amount of food for everyone in the world. Lots of problems just got solved at once.

 

[Zac Kookoo-kachu]

religon, then ***** slap war and call it a *****, then give world hunger +100 coin and tell it to go and get a cookie

 

[cdstephens]

People war because of lack of resources. One necessary resource is food. Thus, shooting world hunger will further the cause for world peace.

religon, then ***** slap war and call it a *****, then give world hunger +100 coin and tell it to go and get a cookie

Because religion is the real reason governments declare war on other governments, not the increase in power, wealth, and land that comes with victory. Uh huh, right.

The only way religion has ever been used in starting war is to convince the masses that war is a good idea; by then, it's already been decided by the higher ups that war is an excellent idea, and as such religion is not the cause for war, but rather a tool for which war can be more easily waged.

As for societal issues, people would cry foul against that sort of thing regardless of religion for simply being a change in the culture. People who dislike homosexuality only use religion as an excuse for their dislike of it, and religion is not the cause for their dislike. It's a case of cognitive dissonance; there's something the mind does not like, so the mind searches for a valid reason for the dislike. Naturally, religion is one major answer that the mind clings to. Another is that it's just plain wrong. The real reason that a person may disliked homosexuality is because they were raised to dislike homosexuality, and because homosexuality is a different lifestyle.

 

[PSIcho2468]

World hunger, reload or get another gun and shoot war

 

[Trull]

War, because we need the whole hunger thing to balance out the population imo.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Argh! I came in here ready to say Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg for ruining The War of the Worlds...

OT: Well I would go with shooting World War, mostly because then we would all have peace and then we'd be able to do something about that world hunger problem together...