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.

Example Input: And (I'm going to use the high estimate this time) would you say 972,000 incidents per year that someone saves a live or prevents a murder with a gun means guns are "not effective for protection?"
Example Output: Valid

Example Input: This decision, Cases v US, is where the militia connection qualification (fn2) was born and another, US v Tot is where the "state's right" interpretations (fn3) came into being
Example Output: Valid

Example Input: Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.
Example Output:
Valid