No.
If some person randomly shoots into the air in a populated area, every day, several times a day, he may do so for years before someone is killed or seriously injured.
When such an outcome eventually does happen, he is likely to be prosecuted for several different types of homocide. The attorneys on both sides argue their points on the various charges. The jury decides "guilty" or "not guilty" on each of the various charges. Maybe he lucks out on the "intent" arguments, and gets convicted of "negligent" something or other.
"Harboring a vicious firearm" would not likely satisfy the voters in the neighborhood.
I’ve seen people achieve a relatively cohesive analogy...but that wasn’t one of them.