> 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.

> 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?

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

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.