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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: After a spate of mass shootings in early August 2019 in the United States, gun violence once again became a major topic of political debate in the country, and many expressed their views on potential solutions to the problem. The left-leaning Facebook page Occupy Democrats suggested that tighter gun-ownership regulations could help to reduce levels of firearms-related fatalities. On Aug. 7, the page posted a meme that claimed: “In Massachusetts, to buy a gun you have to take a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and have a one-on-one interview with a police officer. Oh, and it has the lowest gun death rate in America. Let’s do this everywhere.”    We received inquiries from readers about the accuracy of that two-part claim. On the whole, the Occupy Democrats meme had a high degree of accuracy. Elements of the meme appeared to have been copied from a Facebook post earlier on Aug. 7 by U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass. The meme itself was accompanied by text that read:  “‘Adjusted for age and population, the gun fatality rate in Massachusetts for 2016 was the lowest in the U.S. And that’s how it’s been for most of the last 30 years, although sometimes another state, like Hawaii, which also has very strict gun laws, ends up with a slightly lower rate. '” That text is actually a quotation taken from a May 6, 2018, article published by the Huffington Post, which went on to provide the following disclaimer: “Just how much that low rate has to do with the state’s gun laws is a matter of ongoing debate, even among experts. Pretty much any legitimate study is going to rely on assumptions that will be open to valid criticism; separating out cause and effect can be virtually impossible. But the available research provides a good reason to think Massachusetts laws in general and the permit system in particular have made violence less likely.” This fact check won’t attempt to rule on the validity of any claim that relatively strict gun regulations in Massachusetts are the primary or exclusive cause of that state’s purportedly low rate of firearms-related deaths, merely whether both factors are present there. Massachusetts state law certainly contains comparatively stringent requirements for obtaining and renewing firearms licenses, as well as purchasing and carrying firearms, and the claims made in the Occupy Democrats meme were largely accurate. In Massachusetts, anyone who wishes to purchase or carry a firearm must obtain a firearms license, of which there are two kinds: a license to carry and a firearms identification card (FID), the latter of which relates to rifles and shotguns. Applications for firearms licenses are processed by local police forces, and a 2014 state law gave law-enforcement agencies relatively wide authority and discretion to deny license applications, through a court process, where a license applicant poses a demonstrable risk to public safety. All first-time applicants for a license to carry or an FID must complete a one-day MA Certified Firearms Safety Course or a Basic Hunter Education Course, as part of the application. So the meme’s claim is accurate as regards first-time license applicants, but not for those who already have one, who are not required to undergo training every time they wish to purchase a new gun, for example. Furthermore, all applicants (whether first-time applicants or those applying to renew their firearms license) must provide two character references, as outlined in the state-issued “LTC/FID/Machine gun application,” which can be viewed here. The meme is accurate in this regard. Finally, Massachusetts state law does not oblige a “licensing authority” (typically a police force) to require an in-person interview with license applicants, but many police forces, including the largest in the state, Boston’s, do require such an interview. So that obligation is not prescribed in law, but is a practical necessity for many firearms-license applicants, which partially vindicates the meme’s claim in this regard. This was true in 2016, as the Huffington Post article (which Occupy Democrats indirectly cited as its source) outlined, though not quite accurate in 2017. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks gun deaths (along with many other cause of death) in each state every year. The CDC also calculates gun death rates in each state every year — that is, the number of firearms-related deaths per 100,000 people living in the state, after taking into account and standardizing age distributions across states. In its standard measure of gun deaths, the CDC counts all forms of firearms fatalities including homicides, suicides and accidental discharges. In 2016, Massachusetts had the lowest age-adjusted gun death rate in the country, with 3.4 fatalities per 100,000 people. Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii and Connecticut had the next-lowest death rates, while Alaska, Alabama and Louisiana had the highest rates of gun deaths in the U.S., with 23.3, 21.5 and 21.3 fatalities per 100,000 people, respectively:  Along with New York, Massachusetts had the joint second-lowest gun death rate in 2017, with 3.7 per 100,000 people, behind Hawaii, which had 2.5 such fatalities per 100,000 people:  As the Huffington Post article pointed out, Massachusetts regularly has among the lowest annual rates of gun deaths in the United States. As well as in 2016, it also had the lowest rate in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2009, 2012 and 2015,  The chart below shows the age-adjusted gun death rate of every state, taking into account all gun deaths between 1999 and 2017. Massachusetts had the second-lowest gun death rate over that 19-year period, behind Hawaii. Louisiana, Alaska, the District of Columbia and Mississippi had the highest:  Although the Occupy Democrats Facebook post clearly specified that the basis of the claim in the meme were the figures for 2016, a year in which Massachusetts did indeed have the lowest gun death rate in the country, the meme itself did not make that clear. Taken on its face, the meme was claiming that Massachusetts had the lowest rate of gun deaths in either 2019 (the year in which it was posted) or 2018 (the most recent full year). The state may well ultimately be shown to have the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country during those years, but CDC data for 2019 and 2018 will not be available until 2021 and 2020, respectively. On the whole, the Occupy Democrats meme was highly accurate, though not perfectly so. Claim: Massachusetts has certain strict gun-ownership requirements and the lowest rate of gun deaths in the United States. 

Ex Output:
What's true: Massachusetts requires gun-license applicants to provide character references; first-time applicants must complete a one-day safety training course; and many police departments require an in-person interview before approving license applications. Massachusetts regularly has either the lowest or second-lowest rate of gun deaths in the United States. What's false: In 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, Massachusetts had the second-lowest rate of gun deaths, but data for 2018 and 2019 are not yet available. The gun-license requirements set out in the meme do not necessarily apply to all applicants.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "During a recent appearance on The Daily Show, guest host John Oliver and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., engaged in a lively exchange on health insurance. One of the issues they discussed was the high cost of health insurance. Paul, an eye surgeon, is strongly opposed to President Barack Obama’s health care law. During the interview, Oliver pressed him on how to get more Americans signed up for insurance. Paul told Oliver that according to the most recent statistics,  ""85 percent of people had insurance, so 15 percent didn't. So what you need to do is look at who are the 15 percent, and why don't they have insurance? Of the 15 percent who didn't have insurance, half of them made more than $50,000 a year. Why didn't they buy insurance? Because of the expense. They were young healthy people."" In this fact-check, we’ll check whether the cost of insurance is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans. In a separate report, we’ll look at his claim that half of the uninsured made more than $50,000 a year. Survey data consistently shows that cost is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans obtaining coverage. When the Kaiser Family Foundation’s June 2013 health tracking poll asked uninsured respondents for the main reason they didn’t have health insurance, a plurality of 40 percent cited cost. The second-biggest factor, at 26 percent, was related to employment, such as being unemployed or having a job that doesn’t offer health insurance. These two reasons aren’t mutually exclusive -- someone could have told the pollster that their lack of a job was the biggest reason but also find cost to be a barrier to obtaining insurance. The only answer in the poll that suggests the respondent doesn’t face a cost obstacle is ""doesn’t need insurance,"" which was the answer of only 11 percent. In another survey, the 2011 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers asked, ""Which of these are reasons you stopped being covered or don’t have health insurance?’’ Respondents were allowed to choose more than one reason. In this survey, too, a plurality -- 42 percent -- cited cost. Three other reasons cited are compatible with cost being an obstacle -- a lost job or a change in employment (26 percent), an employer that didn’t offer insurance (11 percent) and ineligible due to age or leaving school (9 percent). Just 6 percent cited ""other,"" which included ""didn’t want or need coverage,"" among other answers. ""The cost of insurance is a major reason why people are uninsured -- Sen. Paul is right about that,"" said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. ""People without access to employer-sponsored coverage have a hard time affording it on their own, and that accounts for most of the uninsured."" Our ruling Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice." Claim: Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense.

Ex Output:
"Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Russian President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the uprising in Ukraine is not surprising if you look at telling comments he made years ago, says former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations turned conservative television pundit John Bolton. A Fox News host asked Bolton if he agreed with Ukraine’s prime minister who said the country is ""on the brink of disaster."" Bolton, who served at the U.N. during George W. Bush’s time in the White House, said it seemed pretty accurate. ""I think Putin knows that he has the high cards, militarily, economically and politically, and he’s prepared to use them,"" Bolton said. ""He gave us notice of his strategy seven or eight years ago when he said, in what is now one of the most frequently repeated quotes from his leadership in Russia, when he said, ‘The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.’ ""It’s clear he wants to re-establish Russian hegemony within the space of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is the biggest prize, that’s what he’s after. The occupation of the Crimea is a step in that direction."" We wanted to know if Bolton correctly characterized Putin’s comments. We reached out to Bolton through his political action committee and the American Enterprise Institute, where he is a senior fellow, but did not hear back. Putin’s 2005 speech to Russians Putin, a veteran of the Soviet spy agency called the KGB, made the comments Bolton cites in an April 2005 state of the nation address to the country’s top politicians and parliament. A version is available in English from the Kremlin archives. Putin’s words vary depending on the translation, but the idea remains the same. From the Kremlin: ""Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself."" The Associated Press translation is a little differently, subbing ""catastrophe"" for ""disaster,"" and calling the breakup the ""greateast geopolitical catastrophe of the century."" That language is a little more in line with what Bolton said. Whatever the word choice, it’s clear Putin believed there were problems created by the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin, who had revived some Soviet iconography as president, focused the rest of his speech on developing Russia as a free and democratic country, though he promised to be tough on popular uprisings inspired by surrounding countries. His speech came as President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered public skepticism of the country’s ""managed democracy,"" leading Putin to declare Russia would ""independently determine"" its definition of democracy. Still, it was his lament for the dissolved Soviet Union that dominated news coverage. The remark was alarming to westerners, illustrating a deep contrast in perspectives of an event that many consider a glorious moment in time, said Dina Spechler, an Indiana University associate professor of political science who teaches Soviet and Russian foreign policy. Spechler said she did not find a problem with Bolton’s characterization, though she added Putin does not want a return of Soviet-era economic centralization. ""I think it’s quite legitimate and fair, and it’s been true for some time now that Putin wants to re-establish Russian hegemony,"" Spechler said. ""He calls it an area of primary Russian interest -- making sure that these countries remain loyal."" Spechler does not predict a full-scale escalation of force by Russia in Ukraine, she said, but she would not rule it out given the crisis between Russia and Georgia in 2008. Ukraine is a large country with strong cultural links to Russia looked upon as a Slavic brother, she said. ""What we’re seeing today is the most significant step Russia has taken, and it is likely to take a while, to fulfill the agenda that was heralded when he called the breakup a tragedy,"" she said. The ""upshot"" of the speech was that if the greatest geopolitical tragedy was the breakup of the USSR, the greatest geopolitical achievement should be the reformulation of a Russian superstate, said Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies at the Heritage Foundation. He wasn’t pining for a new USSR That’s not the only view of Putin’s remarks, however. Other scholars we consulted say there is more nuance in the meaning of Putin’s words. Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, a 2013 book by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution, addresses the ""often misquoted line"" about the demise of the USSR: ""Most references to this line have suggested that Putin was bemoaning the loss of the communist economic and political system,"" the book reads, ""but Putin has since frequently underscored that he was talking about the collapse of the Russian state itself."" Gaddy elaborated in an interview with PunditFact, saying Putin is not eager to re-establish the USSR, partly because it would be costly for Russia, which subsidized many Soviet countries during that era. He does, however, want to make sure surrounding countries are not used against Russia. Gaddy said Putin does not see Ukraine as a prize, as Bolton suggested, but as a potential liability and realm for anti-Russian activity. ""His nightmare has long been that Ukrainian instability would be used to sap Russia’s attention and strength, or worse — that it would be used to entrap Russia into intervening militarily and getting bogged down,"" Gaddy said. ""The nightmare is coming real."" Lance Janda, chairman of Cameron University’s history and government department, challenged Bolton’s assertion that Putin’s remarks in years past foreshadowed the modern events in Ukraine. It’s more complicated, he said. Yes, Russia moved aggressively into Chechnya, South Ossetia and Crimea, but it was not on a whim -- it was to prevent instability along the border after years of NATO expansions, Janda said. Plus, Russia would not have worked in recent years to stabilize its dealings and cooperation with Western countries if it had planned to invade Ukraine all along, he said. ""All Putin meant when he said in 2005 that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe was that it launched protests and uprisings and sectarian violence, which is true,"" Janda said. ""Those of us in the West are okay with that because we saw in those uprisings the birth of new nations and greater freedom, but that doesn’t mean it came without cost or that the Russians were thrilled by it."" Our ruling Bolton told a Fox News host that Putin once said, ""The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century."" Putin did say those words, or at least words close to that, in a 2005 address to Russian political leaders. Bolton went on to tell a Fox News host those words are evidence Putin wants to expand Russia’s influence to where it was in the Soviet days. The record there is not as clear. We found some experts who agree with Bolton’s interpretation, while others who say Bolton is extracting a quote that does not quite mean what he says it does. Bolton’s statement is accurate but needs clarification." Claim: "John Bolton Says Vladimir Putin once said, ""The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century."

Ex Output:

"Bolton told a Fox News host that Putin once said, ""The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century."" Putin did say those words, or at least words close to that, in a 2005 address to Russian political leaders. Bolton went on to tell a Fox News host those words are evidence Putin wants to expand Russia’s influence to where it was in the Soviet days. The record there is not as clear. We found some experts who agree with Bolton’s interpretation, while others who say Bolton is extracting a quote that does not quite mean what he says it does. Bolton’s statement is accurate but needs clarification."