You have a gun with one bullet...

[Kevlar Eater]

I'd shoot myself. Hunger can feed off my body and War gets what it desires: death.

Plus, with me out of the picture, war and famine can continue to kill off large populations so that we don't destroy the earth's resources before we resort to using people as soylent green.

 

[IKSA]

Can I shoot justin biber or rebecca black? they are far worse than those two

 

[Jfswift]

Line them both up.

beat me to it :3

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

Cheating says I shoot both by coming in from the side.

Suicidal superior cheating says I shoot all three of us by standing beside them, whilst they're lined up and shoot myself killing all three of us.

Lack of cheating says to go with war, since, with that out of the way, scientific research can finally refocus on fixing things as opposed to developing new ways to fix everything by killing everyone.

 

[Loud Hawk]

Well, shooting either one would cause the population to explode, so can I keep my bullet and just leave it as it is.

 

[hashtag]

Well, seeing as I've never shot a gun before, I would probably miss.
OT: I'd like to say I would shoot myself, but I honestly don't think I could do that, especially if they came back after 100 years. So I would shoot world hunger. Seems like a bigger problem anyways.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

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...

Death counts presented for Stalin in the west are based on literally nothing. Poor over birth and death records yourself and you will find that even if not a single person in the Soviet Union died of natural causes the most Stalin could have killed was five million with all the warfare and famine (which there is literally nothing to back up as being engineered by Stalin unless Communists controlled the weather). Records only back up 200,000 deaths, but I'm willing to entertain that it was at least a couple million just for the sake of charity. Still, nowhere near Hitler's Germany AND that considers all the people executed by the state for capital crimes, something the United States still does.

(edit- oh, and another fun fact, the most popular death count for Stalin in the west accounts for around ten million more people than can be shown to have died in the USSR while Stalin was in charge of the Soviet Union. The only way it is possible is if you count every Soviet Death the whole time he was in power AND all the Germans his soldiers killed.)

Stalin took a shit hole and within a decade advanced it one hundred years in industrialization to match the rest of the great powers of the world. He advanced the status of the poor greatly. It was some unfortunate business about recriminalizing homosexuality, but it was an unfortunate necessity of the time with the Russian people. So he did not have to become the brutal dictator he is made out to be he put in place some populist reforms to keep the people placated so he could do what really needed to get done.

Stalin was literally a hero and it is unfortunate the lies believed about him without cause. He was a brutal man. He would not be a good leader of an nation that was already in a great circumstance, but he was what the man the Soviet Union needed for its own strength and he was the man the world needed to defeat Hitler. He was a great man and the only great misfortune is that Khrushchev destroyed the unity he had created for the Soviet Union by painting him a monster.

 

[Double A]

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!

I would think that if you got shot in your shoulder, it might screw up that arm's nervous system or render it paralyzed. I'd rather lose a leg than an arm.

 

[Jennacide]

World Hunger. With that out of the way, one of the biggest reasons for war goes out the window. The rest can be dealt with by humanity growing up.

Sadly, this is so far from the truth as to be saddening. The number one cause of war is ideology difference. Be they religious (Islamic terrorism) or cultural (African warlords).