Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Input: Consider Input: "Since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., supporters and opponents of gun control have thrown out statistics to support their point of view. Here's one that caught our eye, offered by liberal commentator Mark Shields on the Dec. 21, 2012, edition of the PBS NewsHour. Shields told host Judy Woodruff, ""You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted."" Is the death toll that high? Let's examine each half of his comparison. Deaths from warfare We found a comprehensive study of war-related deaths published by the Congressional Research Service on Feb. 26, 2010, and we supplemented that with data for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan using the website icasualties.org. Where possible, we've used the broadest definition of ""death"" -- that is, all war-related deaths, not just those that occurred in combat. Here's a summary of deaths by major conflict: 4,435 2,260 13,283 525,000 2,446 116,516 405,399 36,574 58,220 383 2,175 4,486 1,171,177 Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference. Gunfire deaths The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. We've added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC. Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms: We should note that these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths -- not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone. When we rated a previous Facebook post, we lowered an otherwise claim because it said that ""nearly 100,000 people get shot every year."" We found that the number of gun deaths and non-fatal injuries added up to 104,852, but we concluded that the term ""get shot"" could suggest victims who got shot by someone else rather than by their own hand. We don't see a similar problem with the way Shields' comment was phrased -- namely, ""died from gunfire."" Our ruling Since Shields' comparison was otherwise accurate, with about 1.4 million firearm deaths to 1.2 million in war."

Output: "Since 1968, ""more Americans have died from gunfire than died in all the wars of this country's history."

Input: Consider Input: "The release of a video showing NFL running back Ray Rice striking his now-wife in an Atlantic City, N.J., casino elevator revived conversations about domestic violence on the Sunday shows. On the Sept. 14,2014, edition ofCNN's State of the Union, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., shared an anecdote from her time as a prosecutor to illustrate the ills of domestic violence. ""We had a poster outside the door so everyone would see it when they came in. It was a picture of a woman beaten up with a Band-Aid over her nose, holding a little baby boy,"" Klobuchar said. ""And the words read, 'Beat your wife, and it's your son that goes to jail.' "" ""Kids that have seen it happen,"" Klobuchar said, are ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."" Klobuchar concluded that because the NFL puts ""out their players as role models,"" they have ""to set a different culture."" We were interested in checking Klobuchar's claim that kids who witness domestic violence are ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."" 90's kids We want to be clear upfront that witnessing domestic violence means witnessing it in a child's household -- not watching the TMZ.com Rice video. That said, the ""twice as likely"" talking point is fairly popular among advocates against domestic abuse, and suffice to say has been around for a while. The domestic violence literature we've seen often cited that claim with a 1990 book called ""Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families."" This book compiled the results of the landmark National Family Violence Surveys of 1975 and 1985, which constituted 60-minute face-to-face interviews and 30-minute phone interviews, respectively, with thousands of American families. Based on those interviews, the book's authors illustrated how a variety of factors influenced the incidence of domestic violence. Most of the book is about gender differences and roles in domestic violence, but the section on the effects on children crunches the surveys' numbers on whether abusers said they witnessed abuse as children. That produced the ""twice as likely"" estimate. The experts we talked to told us there hasn't been any study as definitive or comprehensive since, although other studies have taken stabs at the issue of intergenerational transmission of domestic violence. ""We've known for such a long time that the biggest risk factor for being abusive against wives and children is witnessing domestic violence at home or being abused,"" said Jacquelyn Campbell, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing who studies domestic violence. So ""people haven't repeated the research for a while,"" Campbell said, and ""a lot of stuff is old and mostly cross-sectional."" What the existing literature says Campbell pointed us to a 2010 study about intimate partner violence -- a subset of domestic violence -- which found that children who witnessed any intimate partner violence were 2.6 times as likely to perpetrate it themselves. Children who witnessed any violence were 1.6 times as likely, according to the study, to become abusers as adults. Klobuchar's claim, then, has grounds in literature both old and new. There are literally dozens of studies on this issue, though, and different studies tell different stories. A 2000 meta-analysis of 39 different studies on this issue found a ""small-to-medium"" correlation between witnessing and perpetrating. The studies in that survey, while a couple decades old, ranged from showing a causal relationship between witnessing and perpetrating to showing no relationship at all. That corroborates Klobuchar's larger point that parents' domestic violence has negative outcomes for their children, but that's not the same as these kids being ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."" Difficulties with measurements Putting numbers on domestic violence is particularly hard, and perhaps even inappropriate, said Ruth Glenn, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. ""I wouldn't say twice as likely,"" said Glenn. ""So I would say that it is an additional risk factor. I get nervous when we start to assign data, because there's not enough data to support it. Domestic violence happens in families, and each of those families are individual units."" In other words, there's enough out there to suggest that children who witness domestic violence are more likely to perpetrate it, but saying something as precise as ""twice as likely"" is difficult. Domestic violence is ""hard to measure for various and sundry reasons,"" said Glenn, from the lack of ""good data"" on who's charged and convicted of domestic violence to confidentiality issues with its victims. And even when researchers can get affirmative data, there are methodological concerns. The studies about children who witness domestic violence often surveyed clinical populations -- meaning those with family issues, so a non-representative sample -- and ask respondents to self-report and to retroactively report. Extricating domestic violence from other family issues -- like mental health and substance abuse -- is also difficult, according to the studies Campbell referred us to. Our ruling Klobuchar, arguing that the NFL has a responsibility to hold its ""role models"" accountable to a ""different culture,"" said that kids who witness domestic violence in their households are ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."" There are legitimate, peer-reviewed studies that bear Klobuchar's claim out. But overall, even though there's a consensus that witnessing domestic violence puts kids at a greater risk for perpetrating it themselves, the precise figures differ. Measuring domestic violence is very difficult for a variety of reasons, and there hasn't been a recent, comprehensive study. So saying these kids are ""twice as likely to commit"" domestic violence is a little too precise."

Output: "Children who witness domestic violence are ""twice as likely to commit it themselves."

Input: Consider Input: The U.S. Forest Service's draft risk assessment suggests that even in a best-case scenario with social distancing followed and plenty of tests and protective equipment available nearly two dozen firefighters could be infected with COVID-19 at a camp with hundreds of people who come in to combat a fire that burns for months. The worst-case scenario? More than 1,000 infections. "The Forest Service is diligently working with partners to assess the risk that COVID-19 presents for the 2020 fire season," the agency said in a statement Wednesday. "It is important to understand that the figures in this report are not predictions, but rather, model possible scenarios." The Forest Service said the document was outdated and being redone, and the newest version wasn't yet ready to share. The AP obtained the draft from an official who has access to it and didn't want to be named. One of the authors of the risk assessment said Tuesday that in the new version, the infection rates remain the same. But while the draft originally said the death rate among infected firefighters could reach as high as 6%, that is being revised sharply downward, to less than 2%, to reflect newer data, said Jude Bayham, an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at Colorado State University. He said the initial death rate was based on data from early in the pandemic, when testing was far more limited. Based on new data, firefighters who are largely healthy and young will likely fare far better if they contract COVID-19 than the general population, he said. For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially people who are older or have health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia and death. Federal guidelines released last week reimagine how to combat wildfires to reduce the risk of firefighters getting the virus. The guidelines urge fire managers to use small crews that can have the close contact that firefighting and travel often require, while staying away from other groups. The guidelines recommend avoiding the traditional large camps and relying on military-issue ready-to-eat or bagged meals instead of catered buffet-style meals at campsites. Some fire managers also are told to take temperatures with their own touchless thermometers if possible. The guidelines say everyone should wear masks and other protective equipment when around those outside their immediate crew. Good cleaning and sanitation is recommended, as is isolating firefighters and potentially entire crews if COVID-19 is detected. A review of incident reports from wildfires so far this year show the guidelines are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to follow and could actually increase some risks to firefighters. "We have developed pinch-points that cause operational lapses in guidance that may very well get confused with policy and doctrine. This situation could result in injury or even unwanted death of our multiagency employees," Greg Juvan, a fire management officer with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, wrote in a report from a small wildfire last month. Social distancing was difficult, and firefighters found it unrealistic to meet sanitation standards for truck radios, hand tools and other gear used in the initial attack on the Idaho wildfire, Juvan said. Social distancing guidelines call for more vehicles to transport crews, but that led to congestion on the narrow roads leading to the fire. The guidelines could raise one of the greatest risks to wildland firefighters traffic wrecks, Juvan said. Even something as basic as sanitizing vehicles proved problematic, with cleaning supplies difficult to find, the report said. In New Mexico, several agencies responded to a small wildfire last month, with some not practicing social distancing and other virus policies appearing to vary greatly, George Allalunis, a Carson National Forest engine captain, wrote in a report. For the Forest Service's draft risk assessment, researchers created scenarios using three actual fires from 2017 and applied disease modeling. They found testing every firefighter before they started work reduced the coronavirus risk most significantly for short, high-intensity wildfires, said Bayham, the professor. But for longer, drawn-out firefights, initial testing was less important than keeping firefighters spread out in small campsites. The models showed that even with strict pre-work testing and social distancing, about 21 COVID-19 infections could be expected in a large camp like that used for a 2017 fire in Montana. In the worst-case scenario, more than 1,000 firefighters would be infected. The problem could compound as fire crews are sent to new locations over the monthslong fire season, which has largely begun. The risk assessment will be updated throughout the season, the Forest Service said. The American West could see higher-than-normal levels of wildfire this year because of drought.
Output: US report indicates broad risk of COVID-19 at wildfire camps.