I mean, is not true?
It also goes without saying and just keeps deflecting from the point. Obviously it's not equal to actually going through with it, but his actions greatly increased the chance that he'd commit murder. "Well he didn't commit a murder" isn't an argument against the fact his actions were incredibly concerning.
Anyways I think it's a good story and a super interesting moment of reflection personally; and while for his personal sake he probably shouldn't have shared it's still interesting.
What would you say was the percent chance of committing murder, like, let's say Liam Neeson is at a baseline 1% chance to commit murder every day, but carrying around a beating stick gives him a sense of general empowerment which raises that chance to 3%
Now let's say if he was unarmed yet actively looking to commit murder on a particular day, the chance raises from 1% to 5%
However carrying a weapon might not increase the chance of murder by the same ratio, we might not be looking at 15% per se, and you also have to factor in the chance that the murder attempt might be unsuccessful and simply amount to assault, so we might be looking at numbers closer to 10%, let's say
Then you have to perform the math on the overall number of days he went around with that 10% chance in order to build a more complete picture of the sort of threat we're looking at here
At 1% chance per day for a week, there's about a 6.7% chance of murder every week he's not carrying a weapon with intent to kill
However at 10% chance per day for a week, it's closer to a 52.2% chance of murder every week he's carrying with death in his eyes, an astonishing increase of 45.5%
So I think that honestly reframes the conversation a bit
