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

For once the court shows some common sense in an aircraft crash. Usually the big pockets, In this case Cessna and Continental are made to pay out money for the negligence of the operator.

Preston Cavner should have been charged with manslaughter for the death of his son and attempted manslaughter for the others injured in the crash. The fact he was never charged with this crime itself is an indictment of the criminal system.

There is no excuse for intentionally overloading an aircraft which is exactly what he did and got a four year old, his own son killed because of it. The burns from the crash the other victims suffered justify the attempted murder charge.
Yes

There is a long history of the elders in a society believing that the past is superior to the present and that the young are incapable of ensuring the future.   

It is, however, my personal perception of an extreme and growing polarization of two-party politics and a reluctance to seek or accept compromise that has become the norm in my lifetime.
No

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.

Yes

