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

[Q]: Or this one, since we're fantasizing:  1.  Today, we learned about covalent bonds in the chem lab.  2. We heard a car horn!  The school is on lockdown and there may be an earthquake at ANY MOMENT.  Someone said something about an astroid that might hit us some day! Also, someone saw a muslim guy who looked suspicious!  We're going to hide under our desks until Pete Kelly saves us with his magic laws!
Only a coward needs a gun to feel safe in a free society.  Yeah, you might get punched in the nose or struck by lightning.  Or, shot by some moron who doesn't like the way you drive.  My point is, there is always some risk of disaster or violence.  In my privileged, reasonably safe little part of the universe (USA), that risk is so small that I'm not going to waste my time worrying about it; seriously, I have better things to do.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: Every one needs to keep in mind that most residential subdivisions in Anchorage have lawns that extend to the curb/sidewalk/edge of paving. But this is not the actual boundry between private property and the public right-of-way. Most streets have a right-of-way that is much wider than the road improvements. As such, pet owners need to fully aware of the location of the actual property line in order to keep their pets entirely on their property. I wonder where the shooting in this case actually happened in relation to the actual property line and not just the lawn line? Maybe a surveyor needs to get involved to tell for sure.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: oooo, scary...'beware in november'.

remember when we threw sean parnell into the briar patch?

he sure is suffering now, you betcha!

that'll larn 'em.
[A]:
Yes