Definition: We would like you to assess the QUALITY of each of the following argument (discussing Gun Control) and determine if the argument is Valid or Invalid. A valid argument is clearly interpretable and either expresses an argument, or a premise or a conclusion that can be used in an argument for the topic of gun control. An invalid argument is a phrase that cannot be interpreted as an argument or not on the topic of gun control.

Positive Example 1 -
Input: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
Output: Valid

Positive Example 2 -
Input: guys from Australia or the Englanders that are as vehement as you seem to be
Output: Invalid

Negative Example 1 -
Input: In sum, I think it makes more sense that the second amendment applies to right to form a militia, and even when interpreted as an individual right, doesn't appear to prohibit any regulation.
Output: Invalid

Now complete the following example -
Input: Lott claimes he lost a single footnote, ich showed that 98% of the time guns used definsivly only had to be brandished to be effective, which is in no way pivotal to his report.
Output: 


Output: Valid