[PatrioticAmerican]

Doing something that is known to be a cause of death is indeed punishable as though the person intended to kill.

Driving drunk, shooting a firearm in a neightborhood, etc., are know killers, and, as such, doing those acts are punishable as thought the person intended to kill.

The person in each case knows that the result may be the death of another. If they knowingly do these acts, then they are knowingly placing the life of others at risk.
Therefore, they do intend to kill. They certainly didn't intend to ensure the safety of others.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Driving drunk, shooting a firearm in a neighborhood, etc., are known killers, and, as such, doing those acts are punishable as thought the person intended to kill."

So are speeding, hunting, paying with matches, smoking in bed, and piloting. All these have been known to kill others. Yet we make distinctions based on mental states, and acknowledge that most of the time no harm comes from these risky activities. I think we would also agree that a drunk driver who kills has probably drivin drunk on average hundreds of times without killing, just as firing a bullet in the air in a populated neighborhood is very unlikely to kill. Compare those who intend to kill; they tend to be far more likely to fulfill their intentions.

"The person in each case knows that the result may be the death of another. If they knowingly do these acts, then they are knowingly placing the life of others at risk.
Therefore, they do intend to kill."

Knowing endangerment should not be punished the same as intended killing. Centuries of law have accepted that without controversey.

Now, if you tell me that reckless homicide is punished with 20 years, and intentional homicide is always punished with life in prison, or death, I'd accept the proportioality of that.