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.

Let me give you an example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
The answer to this example can be: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Here is why: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: Herbert added that President Donald Trump's messaging sometimes distracts from the administration's strong policy. During his monthly news conference at KUED-TV on Wednesday, the Republican governor said while he is open to discussing stronger gun control measures, legislators need to consider how mental illness and violent video games contribute to mass shootings. Herbert's response echoed calls made by Trump after the deadly mass shootings in Ohio and Texas that occurred earlier this month. The president has cited mental illness and video games but steered away from talk of curbing gun sales. "There's a sense of frustration about why this is happening ... I don't know if there's an easy answer on this ... it's not fair to compare, 'Well, they do it over here and this is their result' as opposed to what we're doing here in America. We are a very free and open society," he said. Herbert's comments come one day before Vice President Mike Pence is scheduled to visit to Utah to discuss ratification of the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. Pence is scheduled to speak at Merit Medical Systems, a disposable medical device manufacturer Herbert called an "ideal place" to highlight the benefits of the trade agreement as the company conducts business in Mexico and Canada. Referring to Pence "a good friend" of his, Herbert said the visit would be good for Utah Republicans still wary of the president as Pence is well received in the state. "He's a religious man. He's conducted his life in such a way as to be considered very honest," Herbert said. As for Trump, the governor acknowledged his "rhetoric and messaging" sometimes distracts from the administration's strong policy. "I think what President Trump has done in many ways is really good as far as what he's doing," Herbert said. "We all have a little bit of a pause sometimes with what he says." Claim: Utah governor talks Trump, gun control ahead of Pence visit.
Answer:
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert is calling for increased discussions about mental health and violent video games in response to recent mass shootings.