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.

Ex 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

Ex Output:
Valid


Ex Input:
The militia and the citizens at large would only carry weapons that civilized nations would use in warfare, they would not rightfully carry weapons useful only to criminals.

Ex Output:
Valid


Ex Input:
As far as I am aware, hand guns are illegal outside of the military and police since the Dunblande massacre when a man walked into a school in 1996 and shot a class of children and their teacher.

Ex Output:

Valid