• EvilHankVenture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    If by “extremely high likelihood” you mean “a remote but non zero chance” then I agree. It’s obviously too high a chance to take when it could result in someone’s death, but there’s just to much empty space between people to make it likely he would hit someone.

    • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Well if you’re aiming up toward a camera on a pole, and miss, there’s a 100% chance it hits something else behind it. That being a person is low, but that’s not the only irresponsible thing to hit with a bullet.

      Also, there are 30-40 deaths every year from inadvertent falling bullets from shooting up into the air.

      • EvilHankVenture@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’m not defending shooting into the air, I’m just disputing the “extremely high likelihood” that you will hit a person.

        • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I mean, if you just gloss over half of what I said sure.

          You’re not disputing anything because that’s not what I said.

          I said you have an extremely high likelihood of hitting “something or someone” behind it.

          Which is absolutely true.