4 ms·

> 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

• 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.