Actually, no it isn't. Depending on the jurisdiction it can be reckless endangerment, discharging a firearm in a populated area, but no matter, it's against the law and the law doesn't need changing because of the obvious risk. Same with DUI.
You said that DUI is a victimless crime. It's not.
How is a straight up DUI conviction without another crime committed--and keep in mind speeding or changing lanes without signaling are infractions, not crimes--one with a victim? Who is the victim?
If an intoxicated driver hits or kills someone, that is not a victimless crime. But who is the victim if the person driving above the legal limit does nothing else wrong?
What I don't understand is that a friend of mine who was pulled over and convicted of a DUI is punished more severely than the woman that failed to yield and killed another friend on a motorcycle. That was apparently an accident.
She killed someone disobeying traffic laws (for whatever reason--talking on a cell phone, messing with the radio, just being inattentive) and got a failure to yield citation.
My friend with the DUI killed no one, yet his license was suspended for six months, spent a night in jail, had to take weeks and weeks of classes, pay an incredible fine, will be nailed more on insurance the the lady who actually killed someone, and will be subjected to extra fees every year by the DMV.
I never asked what my friend blew. Doesn't matter anyway. NY state makes no distinction between a .08 and a .3 or any other level of intoxication in punishment. That's another issue I have with the current system.
If there is no personal injury or property damage, where is the victim?