Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[Q]: Paragraph: Most lawmakers will spend the week in their home districts but a select few will gather in New York City for a hearing on what experts say is a looming crisis in home health care services. When the full Legislature returns Feb. 28, lawmakers can look forward to a month of backroom negotiations over the state budget. Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed a $152 billion spending plan. Lawmakers hope to agree on a final budget before April 1, the start of a new fiscal year. Another unresolved issue is Uber’s request to expand upstate. Ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft are both prohibited from operating outside of New York City. ___ This story has been corrected to show the home health care services hearing in in New York City, not Albany. Claim: This Week from Albany: Break before budget work.
[A]: In New York state government news, the Legislature is taking a break before work on the state budget heats up.


[Q]: Paragraph: Police are bulking up their presence at tourist hot spots and on the roads over the four-day holiday, officials said, urging people to stay home during what is normally a popular time for trips. The appeal came as the Swiss death toll continued to rise and neighbouring Austria prepared to relax its own lockdown. “It is not the moment to drop our guard,” President Simonetta Sommaruga told journalists after visiting Lausanne University Hospital. “We do not have a magic wand to bring back our lives from before, but we are already preparing for after the pandemic,” she added. The Swiss death toll from the new coronavirus rose to 641 from 584 people on Monday. The number of positive tests passed 22,000. Sommaruga said it remained vital that people comply with the emergency measures, which include bans of gatherings of more than five people and shutdowns of schools and many businesses. “It will be difficult, very difficult with the Easter holidays coming up. We are still very far from normal,” she said. The government was working on options to relax its restrictions, she added, without giving details. A decision on how to proceed is due by next week. Daniel Koch from the public health agency said the emergency measures had proved their worth, and great care had to be exercised in how they were phased out. “The challenge now is to hold out until the end, because we are halfway there at best,” Koch told a news conference in Bern. Driven by the shutdown, the Swiss unemployment rate jumped to 2.9% in March and was set to rise further. The Swiss army has conducted its biggest mobilisation since the Second World War to aid the emergency services, although its deployment had not been without hitches. [L8N2BV5BR]  The police called on people to postpone trips to the mountains or the hard-hit southern canton of Ticino on the Italian border so as not to burden the emergency services. “The goal is not to punish but to be effective and to prevent the spread of the virus,” said Stefan Blaettler, head of the association of regional police chiefs. “Better days will come more quickly if we stick to the rules,” he added. Claim: Swiss urge public to stick to anti-virus measures over Easter.
[A]: Switzerland’s president called on the public to stick with emergency measures designed to halt the spread of the new coronavirus, saying on Tuesday the country remains “very far from normal” ahead of the long Easter weekend.


[Q]: Paragraph: "In the wake of a Oct. 1 shooting spree in Oregon that killed 10, many -- including President Barack Obama -- are calling for more gun control laws. ""There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America,"" Obama said in remarks the day of the shooting. ""So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence."" There is plenty of debate over the effectiveness of gun control laws, so we decided to dig into Obama’s sweeping claim: that ""states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."" We ran this claim past several experts and found that the statistic generally holds up, but the implications are less clear. Cause and effect The meat of the claim comes from a 2015 National Journal investigation, which concluded that ""the states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths."" The report considered seven types of gun control: handgun permits, background checks, handgun registries, ""stand your ground"" laws, concealed carry permits, open carry permits and gun purchase waiting period. It found that states that had generally more restrictive laws within these categories generally had fewer annual gun deaths. Here’s a chart by National Journal showing the states with the fewest and most gun deaths per 100,000 people, compared to each state’s’ gun laws (more blue = more restrictive laws). You should look at the chart that shows all 50 states. There are some limitations to this kind of research, notably that they do not determine cause-and-effect: whether a state has fewer gun deaths because of the law, said Adam Winkler, a University of California Los Angeles law professor and second amendment expert. Other demographic characteristics -- such as education level, marital stability, rural or urban -- might explain the fewer gun deaths in a particular state. Setting that caveat aside, Winkler said Obama’s statement is true. There are also a couple of outliers to National Journal’s report. For example, New Hampshire has some of the least restrictive gun laws but also the seventh-lowest gun death rate. An academic study published by the American Medical Association in 2013 found similar results: ""A higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state."" In a commentary on the 2013 study, Garen Wintemute, director of UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, pointed out that the correlation between restrictive laws and fewer deaths ""essentially disappeared"" when firearm ownership rates were taken into account. ""Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association,"" Wintemute wrote. ""But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low — there will be less opposition to them — and firearm ownership confounds the association."" While wary of making such a general claim, Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said Obama’s claim is generally accurate. In many states, individual gun laws have shown to be associated with fewer gun-related deaths. He linked us to some of his own research showing, for example, a reduction in murders committed with firearms followed a handgun purchase permit law in Connecticut. In contrast, the repeal of a permit law in Missouri preceded a rise in firearm-caused murders. We looked for evidence to contradict Obama’s statement, and found several complaints from those who favor gun rights. James Agresti, a gun control expert for the conservative-leaning think tank Just Facts, wrote in an email to reporters that statements like Obama’s are ""meaningless"" and ""subjective and ill-defined,"" linking to a Just Facts article that said classification systems that evaluate gun laws state-by-state can be ""haphazard."" Agresti added that the claim ignores the number of lives saved by defensive gun use, and the fact that some states with highest gun-ownership rates also have low homicide rates. Overall, though, we found nothing that offered an outright contradiction to the National Journal analysis. States with laws that restrict guns do tend to have lower death rates, as Obama said. Suicide vs. homicide A notable critique of Obama’s claim is that these gun deaths include suicides -- which account for more than half of all gun deaths -- and Obama was delivering remarks in the context of how to prevent future mass shootings. While research does show that gun laws correlate with fewer firearm-caused suicides, there’s not universal agreement on the effect of gun laws on murders. In his commentary on the 2013 study, Wintemute noted that the vast majority of the observed decrease in gun deaths were suicides. Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker did a calculation of their own and found that when suicides are taken out of the picture, there’s not as clear a correlation between more gun laws and fewer non-suicide gun deaths. (They rated Obama’s statement as two out of four Pinocchios.) Obama’s use of this factoid is deceptive because he was selling gun control as a way to stymie murders, not suicide by gun, said David Kopel, a gun rights advocate and research director of the conservative Independence Institute in Denver. He likened it to a car salesman telling a family a car is ""safe, according to government studies."" The family takes this to mean the car will protect them in an accident, but the salesman was actually referring to the fact that studies have found the car to be safe for the environment. Experts do, though, see reason to believe that stronger gun laws will reduce homicides, as well, even if the research isn’t conclusive yet. One survey of about 150 researchers actively publishing work on guns found that 71 percent believe that strong gun laws reduce the number of homicides, compared with12 percent who disagree. While there are always exceptions, ""the research on the whole shows that if you make it more difficult for individuals -- especially individuals with a criminal background -- to obtain firearms you will prevent some gun-related criminal offenses,"" said Jay Corzine, a sociology professor at the University of Central Florida who studies homicide and violent crime. Our ruling Obama said, ""States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."" Research shows that the more gun laws a state has, the fewer gun deaths there are. Obama gets some wiggle room because he said ""tend to"" as opposed to making a definitive statement. The problem is, however, that this is an overly general statement. The research doesn’t prove a universal cause-and-effect relationship between gun laws and fewer gun deaths; it might just be a correlation. Some laws are more effective than others, and other cultural, demographic or socioeconomic factors might be the driving force behind the number of gun deaths in different states. Correction: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of James Agresti, to clarify his views and to provide links to his original commentaries." Claim: States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.
[A]:
"Obama said, ""States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."" Research shows that the more gun laws a state has, the fewer gun deaths there are. Obama gets some wiggle room because he said ""tend to"" as opposed to making a definitive statement. The problem is, however, that this is an overly general statement. The research doesn’t prove a universal cause-and-effect relationship between gun laws and fewer gun deaths; it might just be a correlation. Some laws are more effective than others, and other cultural, demographic or socioeconomic factors might be the driving force behind the number of gun deaths in different states."