I think we have laws that cover those cases. Attempted murder not being the same as actual murder even though the only difference might be bad aim and all that.

If by firing randomly you were assured nobody else would be hurt, would anyone still care? The real problem with firing randomly is that you can't ensure nobody will get hurt.

Taking drugs is two steps removed from that. The idea being that by taking drugs, you are more likely to walk down the street firing a gun randomly, therefore a criminal. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

> Say I walk down the street firing a gun randomly, but I don't strike anyone with a bullet. Civil remedies only?

Why not? If you are in actual fact endangering people then you are risking the severe criminal penalties that would be imposed if you hit someone. That is enough to deter anyone acting rationally. On the other hand, if you are not deterred because you have somehow ensured that your actions will cause no damage, why should your actions be prohibited?

Incentives that apply perfectly to rational actors have a pretty poor track record of influencing human behavior in the desired way.

Yes. The fact that no one was hurt should make it not a criminal offense, maybe it's still severely punished civilly, but it should not incur being jailed.