You have a gun with one bullet...

[Stuntcrab]

World hunger

Dying in war is --> usually <-- quicker, and in my opinion war is the human race's population control, deer is hunting, humans is killing each other.

 

[Arrogancy]

I shoot world war. There's already enough food for everyone on the planet, most hunger is just a result of socioeconomic disparity or government intervention screwing everything up. So, world hunger just means that we have less food that already won't be going to people who need it. Wars just cost so much more to deal with.

 

[loomis]

Shoot world hunger then ally with World War to gain more power.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Kill Hunger, then slowly beat War to death with the butt of the gun for being a dick who deserves a longer, slower more painful death.

Alternatively, Shoot War, and feed the corpse to Hunger.

The option of shooting myself is attractive, purely because I'd enjoy the irony of a fat guy like myself solving world hunger by eating a bullet.

Also, on my favourite subject, it'd be fun to see how the newspapers manage to make a fat guy look bad for saving the world, because, we all know only slender, beautiful people do anything good any more.

 

[Odbarc]

Can I shoot Stupidity instead? That would fix both.

Yes, he said you can shoot yourself and that would fix both. Good work, lol.

 

[RastaBadger]

Can I stand them in front of each other and shoot both at once? Or shoot one then pistol whip the other to death.

 

[Atheist.]

I choose to shoot the OP, since he's the one making me choose between these three options. He forgot the hidden fourth answer.

 

[Mischa87]

Go for the hip, there's probably noting vital there.

I'll have you know I think my hips are one of my best features! They are very vital to the accumulation of things that makes me hotter than three rats fornicating in a wool sock.

Naw, but seriously, in the BDSM circles I've run in, they always said the shoulder was a good place to bite/cut, because it healed quickly, tended not to bleed much, and there's no major veins/arteries particularly near the surface.

And just think, in action movies, where do you often see the protagonist get shot? And pretty much shrug it off? Yeah... made ya think *nods sagely*

Alternatively, your left pinkie.

Narf!

 

[somonels]

I shoot the OP. No reason to be handing out guns all willie-nillie.

 

[Asdalan08]

Go for a 720 no-scope collateral trick-shot noob-ownage extravaganza, miss, hit a conveniently place thin rope attached to an anvil dangling directly above my head.

 

[Ledan]

World hunger. Why? It's never going to solve itself, people don't really give carp. War is being worked on, and without hunger many people will be less likely to go to war.

Also: If i was actually in that situation I wouldn't shoot anyone. Just because their names are world hunger and world war doesn't mean they cause them.....

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

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?

I go to the store and get more bullets.

That Entei of a world war, and Suicune of world hunger can't hide from me for long!

 

[Dutch 924]

Ask them politely to stand in front of each other

 

[LadyTiamat]

Shoot hunger, pummel war with fists. Problems solved!

 

[Browbeat]

Shoot self. Inevitability is the fourth party, more prevalent than either presented opponent. Also, compounded with Free Will, a gift of human sentience paired with the Ego mechanism of our minds, shooting oneself is both the most significant and appropriate response.

After all, if the gun is force, how will force counter overwhelming force (war) or provide nourishment? Although, if hunger would eat war... LEAD SAMMICH! *blam*

 

[DrunkPickle]

I wouldn't shoot either...You might think I'm cruel but, war and world hunger are one of the few things that keep humanity from going completely insane. We learn from our experiences with war and hunger; if there would be no conflicts all of the civilization would be selfish and corrupted by their luxury life.

You probably think I'm exaggerating, but just look at the old people who fought during World War II and compare them to us.

 

[spartan231490]

I shoot the ground. You can't stop war, and you can't stop hunger, and stopping either one while strengthening the other would have horrible unforseen consequences that might effect me. and stopping both would lead to a massive overpopulation problem and with no release through starvation or war, a massive pandemic would break out and bad things would happen everywhere.

 

[Sebastian Rios]

I'll shoot the guy or girl who gives me that choice.

 

[dave1004]

I'd tell them to wait there and then buy some more bullets. Then return with tea and crumpets, and enjoy a nice, long chat session.

 

[Philip Petrunak]

War. Fact is, without war, we'd have a lot more money to help people in need, and we would be eliminating most of the reason for world hunger to begin with.

That said, if the one wasn't so dependent on the other, and this wasn't a permanent solution, I'd off myself. Fact is I'm choosing War because an end to war forever would lead to an end to Hunger forever. This is just an issue of practicality.