About the Blog:

This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun control. The site is authored by Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes. We can be reached at armedwithreason@gmail.com.

About the Authors:

Evan DeFilippis

11949293_10207751439928843_5907993482710558174_n (1)

Evan DeFilippis is currently attending Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, focusing on economics and public policy.  He graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a triple degree in Economics, Political Science, and Psychology.  He was the University of Oklahoma’s valedictorian in 2012,  one of the nation’s 50 Harry S. Truman Scholars based on his commitment to public service, and is a David L. Boren Critical Languages scholar.   He speaks fluent Swahili, and is committed to a career in international development.

His work on gun violence has been featured in  in Washington Post, Atlantic, Slate, VICE, Huffington Post, Vox, Media Matters, Boston Review, and many others.   He also writes on productivity and self-help at Quora, where his work has been published in Time Magazine, BusinessInsider, Medium, and many others.

He currently works as a research analyst for the investment firm Quest Opportunity Fund.


Devin Hughes

DH Award

Devin Hughes is the Founder and CIO of Hughes Capital Management, LLC, a Registered Investment Advisor, in Edmond, OK. He graduated Summa Cum Laude from the University of Oklahoma with a dual major in Finance (Outstanding Senior) and Risk Management, where he attended as a National Merit Scholar. He has been published in The Honors Undergraduate Research Journal (THURJ) 2013 “Ponzi: When Dreams Are All That Matters”; Brainstorm 2012 “The War Against Memory: New Media and Learning”; THURJ 2011, “The Great Disparity”; and the Journal of Global Affairs 2011, “The Decline and Fall of America: To be continued?”



  • Pingback: Daily Krunch » Do We Have a Gang Problem or a Gun Problem?()

  • john richie

    Hey Armed With Reason,
    I came across your website while researching gun control. I’m a New Orleans filmmaker who directed a documentary about youth and gun violence that will be airing nationally on the PBS series, American Reframed, this February. Currently, I’m at the end of an online campaign to raise funds for my next film and could really use help letting people know about our project. We have already raised $44K out of our $60K goal, but we only have 3 days remaining. If you have a few minutes, please watch our short video. If you feel that it aligns with your interests in helping the gun control movement, please post my link on your blog or social media accounts. Here is the link:

    Thanks so so much!!!
    John Richie

  • Excellent article on Dubunking the Defensive Gun Use Myth!

    Several years ago after one of the many massacres I wrote the following piece. I’d be grateful if you can help give it wider circulation.


    Gun Math

    Lets apply some elementary math to the claim that there are _AT LEAST_ 2.5 million crimes prevented every year by law-abiding citizens brandishing guns.

    According to the Census Bureau, there were 281,421,906 Americans as of April 1, 2000. Dividing 2.5 million by the total population yields a percentage of .00888 (rounded down). If the gun supporters are correct, to get an idea of how often someone in your area is saved by a gun, simply multiply .00888 by your area’s population, then divide by 365.

    I’m writing this from Petaluma, California, population 54,478, a town so typical of the rest of America that Ronald Reagan shot (no pun intended) the parade for his famous “Morning In America” re-election campaign commercials here, and blockbuster movies such as “American Graffitti” and “Peggy Sue Got Married” were filmed here just because it is so “typical.” I submit that if any town is likely to be considered a valid statistical model for the average American town, Petaluma is it. It has an ethnically diverse population, and also has its share of crime, including the nationally televised Polly Klaas kidnapping/murder case of several years ago.

    So lets run the numbers for this “typical” town. Multiplying 54,548 by .00888 yields a result of 484.38 crimes that were allegedly prevented here last year, or an average of 1.32 every day (rounded down). Given what I know of this area, and attempting to apply common sense in evaluating these results, the numbers claimed by gun supporters seem to me to be about as valid a reflection of the reality which surrounds me as a Mother Goose fairy tale.

    I have no hard data, but common sense tells me that if guns do prevent crimes here, it happens maybe once every couple of years, and certainly not 1.32 times every day, 9.24 times every week, 39.6 times every month, or 484.38 times every year. Looked at another way, if the gun supporters are correct, in the twenty years I’ve been in these parts 9,680 Petalumans have been saved from crimes by guns.

    This is not to say that there may indeed be cases in Petaluma where brandishing a gun has prevented a crime, but neither I nor anyone I know has ever heard of one.

    Scott Morrison

  • Just heard y’all on On The Media with Bob Garfield. Love what you said about how it’s lazy journalism to give all sources the same weight, and on a personal level I know a lot of people who think they are automatically right if they pick the precise middle of the road haha. Excited to read your blog!

  • I applaud your work. Please go to my website. My new book — Uncommon Sense — A View from the Middle — has a chapter titled “Firearms in the United States” and I think you’ll find it interesting. At the website, look at the “Table of Contents” which has a paragraph introducing each chapter. The book is available as an e-book or print book on Amazon. john roberts

  • I didn’t realize that my web address would not appear on my comment. That website is

  • Tony Comer
  • I am grateful that you guys do this. I am sad that many of the Christians in the Right do not support common sense when it comes to guns. Their arguments are primarily selfish. I am Catholic.

  • You guys should write articles about Christians who support gun control.

  • I am curious to hear Armed With Reason’s response to this brief article. It is something that I have often wondered about with regards to gun control legislation: will it really make any difference? Especially, since all those guns are already out there (pandora’s box).


  • Thanks for sharing this info. I wasn’t brought up in a gun toting society (even police did not regularly carry a gun) and I don’t currently live in one where ordinary every day people feel it necessary to own them, except for hunting or military requirement, or policing.

    I’m glad for the background info you provided against the arguments people use to justify an armed population and to fight against control and regulation.

  • eve

    I just read your post about the myths regarding armed militias. Thank you so much for this. I am going to send it to all my friends. They are all in favor of gun control and will appreciate the history and analysis showing how wrong the myths are. I do.

    I live in Texas and can remember when people who had guns were mostly hunters or farmers/ranchers. Now we have organizations pushing for people (but only those who look like them) to carry a gun everywhere.

    More posts from you guys, please.

  • Pingback: Gun Bias In, Gun Bias Out()

  • Pingback: Gun Bias In, Gun Bias Out | 1 In The Chamber()

  • Mark Jones

    Remember Evan’s name from mutual friends while attending OU. Randomly stumbled upon this website while trying to pen down a different Evan (whose last name I can’t remember).

    In essence, I just want to thank you both for tackling such an important issue through your research and writing. I’m radically anti-gun but don’t have much a voice on the matter, especially while in Oklahoma. Anyways, THANK YOU.

  • Liz

    So glad to have found a site that has logical and rational explanations supporting sensible gun regulations! I get so annoyed with all the hysteria and emotional stuff on both sides. I’d love to see you expand on the whole insurrectionist theory. If you play out their little fantasy – who will be the ones that the gun-advocates will be fighting against? Our own military no? Isn’t that a losing proposition? Plus, the gun lovers are all the same people who are constantly gushing about how they love our military and how they support our military…. yet, they will kill our military if the government goes tyrannical… the mental gymnastics to play this scenario out are just astounding.

  • Joe Marcy

    Just read your piece in the Sunday LA Times. Congrats for being published; however, your debunked justifications for having guns ignores the most basic reasoning. Black Swan risk theory advances the idea that those events highly implausible or even considered impossible should be covered by a side bet because the payout–however unlikely–will be potentially enormous. So let’s consider the following “impossible” events: foreign or alien invasion and occupation; violent political revolution in the streets; without warning super pandemic with mass hysteria; widespread looting and rioting whatever the cause; and yes I’m not going to leave out apocalypse, zombie, spiritual, or otherwise. In these catastrophic circumstances, having a gun well secured in your closet could make the difference between survival and causality.

  • angeline bell

    I was thrilled to read about your arguments against gun control in the LA Times Sunday! It is high time we do something about gun incidents in America!! Thanks for doing your part.

  • Barry Nakell

    I just read the column by DeFilippis and Hughes. I would like to note that the police who were killed in Dallas and Baton Rouge were armed and trained but that did not help them. I would also like to note that Chris Kyle, “the American Sniper,” was armed and train when he was killed but that did not help him.

  • Isthatso?

    “Commie propaganda…” Any other braindead 1970s Archie Bunker pejoratives you care to toss out? Just because you can’t keep up with actual scholarship is flimsy reason to criticize it. And how many degrees have you earned in economics? I’m guessing none. How many prestigious scholarships have you won? None I bet. And how many of your publications have appeared in national newspapers of record? None. In fact, I’m guessing, if it were for free comment sections like Disqus, you’ve have no voice at all.

  • Robert W. Sotis

    What happened to the stooopiT comment from Isthatso? Did you delete your own crap shitforbrains?

  • Mimi Dean

    Thank you so much for this website. It’s vitally important to share the viewpoints of educated, broadly experienced people who have thoroughly studied the facts about gun issues. I love how effectively you back up your assertions and debunkings with real data and true science. You’re doing extremely important work, and I will share it often.

  • whorton

    I am just curious, according to the University of Oklahoma:

    “DeFilippis. . . holds a 4.0 grade-point average and is pursuing majors in economics, political science and psychology with minors in African-American studies and mathematics.”

    Did Even ever complete a bachelor’s or master’s level degree in statistics, or just minor at the bachelor’s level? He certainly has impressive educational credentials, but given the level of time and effort applied to attacking Lott’s material, I have to wonder. Not to mention Lott’s generalized response, which originally appeared in Vox:


    It is a valid question.

    • Evan DeFilippis

      To answer your question — I am about to finish my Master’s Degree in Public Affairs at Princeton, and have taken a graduate-level Statistics sequence including the following courses: Advanced Quantitative Analysis, Advanced Econometrics, Time-Series Analysis, Generalized Linear Models, and Impact Evaluation. But I can’t express enough how little econometrics training you need to identify the weaknesses in Lott’s research. This isn’t a question of missing some underlying complexity to the problem — Lott’s papers are riddled with errors (both obvious typographical errors in terms of missing or miscoded data) and econometric ones (failing to include clustered standard errors, for example). You don’t have to take my word for it, this blog references the work of top econometricians and economists at Stanford, Harvard, and Yale, all of whom disagree with Lott’s central premise.

      • whorton

        Thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. It sounds like you will be well prepared to respond to John Lotts books. I would congratulate you on the impending masters. Your academic credentials have not really been an issue. Granted, Lott has made some errors, but I still suspect the basic underpinnings of his theory are correct.

        We disagree philosophically, but we both graduated from the University of Oklahoma.

        • Evan DeFilippis

          Thank you for your measured and reasonable comments on this site. — and it’s great to see another Sooner on here. As you might notice, the comments section of this site (and most sites) are a bit of a nightmare. I’m afraid I don’t have the time to rebut the endless vitriol hurled at me by other posters, but I do appreciate your posts.

        • plus10000

          >but I still suspect the basic underpinnings of this theory are correct

          Curious choice of words, “I still suspect” —– as in gut feeling?

  • William Ashbless

    I’d like to solicit the author’s opinion on his favorite researcher’s clear bias against gun owners.
    David Hemenway is down on record as calling gun owners ‘wimps’ and ‘wusses’. His opinion is that ‘real’ men must have some kind of strength or martial arts skills to defend themselves. Is there not some researcher code of ethics that protects the integrity of his work?

  • Zorok Krull

    Liberal boolsheet. Libtards can read this stuff all day long.