3 ms·

> sure, there were probably a few drunks firing into the air, but that's more reckless than violent Seeing as it can lead to fatalities to bystanders [1], I wo

> sure, there were probably a few drunks firing into the air, but that's more reckless than violent Seeing as it can lead to fatalities to bystanders [1], I would be fine calling it "violent". [EDIT: "potentially violent" being perhaps a better term]. In my opinion, this is why at last gun education would be a good bipartisan way to reduce gun accidents (if not gun crime). If a police dispatcher does not think that firing into the air is serious problem and can kill people, that in itself is a big problem. I was browsing the ShotSpotter website, and they have a paper that talks specifically about celebratory gunfire. [2] [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14616491 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14616491 [2] http://www.shotspotter.com/system/content-uploads/MYTHS_about_Celebratory_Gunfire.pdf http://www.shotspotter.com/system/content-uploads/MYTHS_abou...

hugh4 10y ago
> 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.
- parennoob 10y ago
  > 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?
  - hugh4 10y ago
    Because the drunk with the chainsaw knows whether or not he's slicing up someone at any given time.
    - parennoob 10y ago
      Not necessarily. People who are drunk are not always aware of their actions. His vision and judgement could be very impaired depending upon how drunk he is.

hugh4 10y ago

> 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.

parennoob 10y ago
> 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?
- hugh4 10y ago
  Because the drunk with the chainsaw knows whether or not he's slicing up someone at any given time.
  - parennoob 10y ago
    Not necessarily. People who are drunk are not always aware of their actions. His vision and judgement could be very impaired depending upon how drunk he is.