Your first example, no. That is a threat of violence and is illegal literally everywhere (even in the US). However it does not become "violence" until you commit a physical act.

Your second example is inciting public panic. Again, not violence. And again, illegal literally everywhere (at least AFAIK).

> serious physical harm that's resulting directly from your action

That's the thing, the panic was the direct result. The physical harm was indirect. Once again, words have meanings.

Perhaps you should seek to learn more about the law. You might find that, in addition to words having meaning, society has been dealing with "problematic" behaviors for as long as it has existed and is honestly pretty well equipped for it in general. These things have been catalogued extensively. Referring to everything as "violence" is no better than labeling every other crime "terrorism".

[dead]