Whenever you find yourself responding (or just tempted to respond) to a general claim with specific examples, you don't actually have an argument. I'm not going

Whenever you find yourself responding (or just tempted to respond) to a general claim with specific examples, you don't actually have an argument. I'm not going to make Cowen's point for him but it's fairly clear what he means: > In part our guns problem is an alcohol problem. According to Mark Kleiman, half the people in prison were drinking when they did whatever they did. Is it fair to say that elites don't have significant numbers of them imprisoned after alcohol-fueled crimes? It either is, or it isn't. And if you want to attack Cowen's position, this is how you do it. By showing that there is no significant difference. Not with Charlie Sheen. Who's gonna be perfectly fine BTW because he has had one high-paying gig after another since he was... 20?