> Seeing as it can lead to fatalities to bystanders, I would be fine calling it "violent".
No, I would say "violence" requires a certain intent, whereas firing shots into the air is merely ridiculously stupid and reckless.
No, I would say "violence" requires a certain intent, whereas firing shots into the air is merely ridiculously stupid and reckless.
I think (and this is where I probably differ from other people) that the discharge of a death-dealing weapon that is far deadlier than a gun or a knife implies at least a potential for violence. I guess I wouldn't go so far as to classify a death from it as actual violent crime though, which seems to be what you are driving at.
To explain this analogy a bit, if a drunk person is running down the street swinging a chainsaw for purposes of "celebrating" New Year, do you think he will be reported to the police as potentially violent? Why should drunks firing guns be different?