But I did vote just now, with a caveat(alas only to an internal one), that extreme may be a bit over the top. however, who knows, potentially dangerous situations may lead to other extremely dangerous situations. I do accede to the OP, as generally put.
my reasons for my change of heart have to do with philosophical analysis is , a goal oriented ,descriptive and post riptide end product.
My argument for more categories of description between extreme and dangerous potential situations, was meant as an exploratory venture into the leeway You would give, in terms of evaluating, or rather, broadening the categorical classifications, so as to propose an idea based on literal interpretation.
You may have added an additional category of ‘Merely dangerous’, in order to rate the level at which You may expect, at a more moderate expectation, and asking for a vote on basis of a suggested extreme level, may have shown an expectation at that level.
However, after Your feedback, I still thought of it as a dangerous potential to have, and not belov that, so that left the only available option.
lastly, I could have not voted, as suggested, but on reconsideration, that choice would have left me in an irresponsible position of having no opinion.
As it is better to have an opinion with a post script explanation, then none at all, I reconsidered my position. in addition a more flexible choice is tatamount to variance and subsequent changes oft reflect this very flexibility. The danger of armed violance , especially among the young, the poor , and the uneducated, simply requires response, where the analyst has to leave the ego at the doorstep.
,