[parennoob]

> 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

[2] http://www.shotspotter.com/system/content-uploads/MYTHS_abou...

[hugh4]

> 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]

> 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]

Because the drunk with the chainsaw knows whether or not he's slicing up someone at any given time.

[parennoob]

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.