Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: H Clinton did not make history. The Democratic establishment, DNC, and the news media made history by showing us how they can manipulate a person into a power position who may not be the best choice to lead the nation.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: It is a pretty flat pay scale for the nano guy. As a long-time full professor in engineering/computer science in San Diego he was probably making $175,000 a year or more. So he doubles his pay to become chief of a huge research center, and makes ~10X more than the lowest-paid employee. He probably makes less than some of the doctors in the institute.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Uh, yeah you do *if* someone is threatening harm to you and/or family. Tallman assaulted Larson several times with the intent to harm. Tallman's intentions were obviously not good ones and Larson acted within his rights to self-preservation to defend himself on his own property.  Larson does not seem the type to fit your so-called definition of a person "just looking for a reason to run around blasting away..." but he does sound like someone who was merciful in only wounding Tallman, not giving him a fatal shot.  There is no handgun epidemic -- guns are not an epidemic on their own. It's specific (often dumb) *people* using handguns that are the epidemic -- those often not registering their firearms, aren't trained, and often, running around only with violent intentions, not for reasons of self-defense.
[EX A]:
Yes