If all shots missed, no damages were incurred.
False. There are demonstrable emotional damages for threatening with deadly force. Either you used fear to try to compel someone to use force against themselves, or you were trying to harm them, the threat of which resulted in emotional damages, which are definitely demonstrable.
Again, this is the problem with statists. They only pretend to care about crime when the people who engage in it aren't wearing costumes.
All shots missed what? It seems unlikely every bullet would literally hit nothing at all such that "no damages were incurred."
Right. Emotional damage. So are you going to throw internet trolls in jail too when they hurt peoples' feelings? I'm sure the victim could demonstrate emotional harm.
Also the scenario was laid out pretty simply, don't see where you're getting this "compel someone to use force against themselves bit." I clearly said they were being shot at.
Again, this is the problem with anarchists. They can't argue against points so they argue against things you didn't say and try to insult you.
Your claim now is threatening someone with deadly force is the same as posting on the internet?
Again, this is the problem with statists.
Like "So if someone pulls a gun on you and unloads 6 rounds trying to shoot you, but has terrible aim and misses every shot... no crime was committed?", for example?
Yet another problem statists: gaslighting and projection
Now you're doubling down by alleging that I'm alleging proportionality doesn't exist?
Which implies you don't think damages can be proven when threatening someone with deadly force.
Wow indeed.
Wow. Look, you said all someone needed to do was prove emotional damage. People claim that all the time on the internet. Bullies can go to jail for those emotional damages.
This is all based on you claiming you have to prove damage to the victim and then assuming I'm a statist to ignore my point rather than actually discussing it.
I'm saying that attempting to kill someone is, and should be, be punishable even if you can't prove damage. I'm saying that your interpretation of the law is flawed and based on a single point which can easily be questioned on situations like the one I gave.
Interesting that you started off by dismissing me as a statist, then flagged my post... yet still haven't even attempted to argue against the point I made.
So the bullets bother you? Ok what if someone just tried to punch a victim? I've been in fights where I actually did get punched, and couldn't claim "emotional damage." Therefore if someone attempts to punch a person and fails, is a crime committed? Look, there's an entire spectrum of waht might bother people. A battle hardened veteran might not be "emotionally damaged" one bit by a few bullets, while another vet with PTSD might be completely harmed by it. By nitpicking the exemplum you're really just avoiding the point, which is that attempting to hurt someone should be punished regardless as to whether they were successful in causing harm.
"attempting to hurt someone should be punished regardless as to whether they were successful in causing harm." ~@telos, Who do you think has the authority to do the "punishing" that you speak of?