You have a gun with one bullet...

[someonehairy-ish]

I'd shoot Rick Astley.

 

[Gluzzbung]

World war. Hunger has a solution, but people will always be more hungry for power.

 

[MattRooney06]

You guys ever seen Wanted? I spent thee whole of my last year at college teaching myself how to bend bullets, it's pretty cool, so I think i'd just do an awesome bullet bend and hit them both

 

[000Ronald]

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?

Can I just walk away?

See, I wouldn't call myself a pacifist, but other people have; I don't believe that violence is justified. Ever. Under no circumstances.

Why can't I take out the bullet, put the gun on the ground, and walk away?

 

[Henkie36]

Killing World War will stop everyone from dying, and killing World Hunger will stop a few million people from dying. I'd kill World War.

 

[Korbo]

Neither and shoot the one who gave me the gun and bullet for trying to convince me to murder. I'm below that, you know.

Can you even fire a gun with those hooves?

OT: Neither. Hunger and war are a necessary part of life. Without either, we would over populate the Earth incredibly fast. Anyway, Justin Bieber is a more worthy cause than war and hunger.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Can I shoot something else instead? I don't wanna shoot either of those things, and I certainly don't wanna shoot myself. Can I shoot Ben Affleck instead?

Same here, only I want to shoot Justin Bieber.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

War, it's not really even much of a choice. World hunger can be helped but war is often uncontrolable (nukes would be world ending).

 

[Imperium9990]

I would shoot myself

 

[idodo35]

probably world war im probably reach enogh to not suffer from world hunger

 

[Jezzascmezza]

If shooting war prevents all possible future wars, then I'd shoot World War.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

Definitely shoot myself.

Actions echo in eternity and I'd like to think that my bloodline would have one individual every one hundred years that will keep it going. A centenary festival in our honour with the climax being the One Shot.

Seems a little cultish, but what an amazing sacrifice for the greater good.

If I'm cheating and it's a one time thing, I'd still shoot myself and hope that there will be a festival anyway. Although what a day when the one hundred years is up...

 

[Vegosiux]

Honestly? I shoot myself. By now the society should have learned to deal with its own problems, and since it didn't I don't know what I'd still be doing around.

 

[danirax]

Ill shot World Hunger
World War can be won =P

 

[rob_simple]

I'd shoot World Hunger. Assuming I am in possession of the last bullet in the world all the remaining wars will be those good old school axe and sword affairs so I can get stuck in.

Let's have it.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Probably war. And then all the money we are currently spending on war (which is a LOT) can be put towards world hunger. That's the obvious solution, right?

 

[Uncompetative]

Neither.

I find World War takes care of World Hunger quite nicely.

Besides, I'm a terrible shot - you should see me play Halo 3.