Categories

AOAV: all our reportsGun violence

The political economy of the gun: militarised masculinity, commerce, and the global health burden of firearms examined

By Yvonne Tesire, Samantha Schroeder on
Pin

Summary

gun mars hand

Background
Firearm violence is a major global health burden shaped by political, economic, and gendered forces. The military-industrial complex, cultural narratives surrounding protection, and longstanding norms of militarised masculinity influence how firearms are produced, circulated, and used. Although public debate often focuses on deregulation versus control, firearm violence is more accurately understood as a multidimensional public health crisis driven by structural inequities and the widespread civilian availability of small arms.

Methods
This report draws on an interdisciplinary review of academic literature, public health research, global firearm mortality datasets, and regional violence monitoring reports. The conceptual framework integrates political economy analyses of the defence sector, feminist security studies on militarised masculinity, and epidemiological evidence on firearm-related mortality, morbidity, and psychosocial harm. Demographic patterns were examined to characterise gender-specific and structural determinants of firearm violence.

Findings
The analysis identifies three intersecting drivers of global firearm harm: the political and corporate dynamics of the military-industrial complex, gendered constructions of militarised masculinity, and cultural and commercial narratives that normalise firearms. These forces contribute to a civilian stockpile of more than one billion guns worldwide and shape distinct patterns of victimisation. Women are disproportionately affected through intimate partner violence and femicide. Men account for most firearm-related homicides and are particularly vulnerable to gun-related suicide. Children and adolescents exposed to shootings experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and long-term educational and social disruption. Structural inequities, including poverty, segregation, and unequal access to healthcare, produce marked racial and ethnic disparities, with Black Americans facing firearm homicide rates nearly ten times higher than white Americans.

Interpretation
Firearm violence cannot be addressed effectively through security or criminal justice frameworks alone. The findings highlight the need for coordinated, preventive, public health responses that reduce access to firearms among high-risk individuals, strengthen trauma-informed mental health services, challenge harmful gender norms, and address the structural inequities that create vulnerability to gun-related harm.

Introduction

In the shadow of global conflict and a rising wave of security threats, the gun market has evolved into a highly masculinised and militarised domain. This transformation is driven not only by geopolitical imperatives but also by strategic alliances between political elites, corporate-funded think tanks, and powerful defence contractors. A growing masculinised hegemony now dominates decisions around the use of force, particularly in interpreting Article 51 of the UN Charter, which governs the right to self-defence. Increasingly, this provision is invoked to justify pre-emptive military action, even in the absence of imminent threat, reinforcing a culture of militarisation that disproportionately affects women and children.

These ‘sustained narratives of military threat’ (BMJ, 2025) have seeped into everyday life, normalising gun use through media portrayals and framing firearms as essential tools of protection. As war becomes a business where power, profit, and masculinity intersect, the consequences extend beyond the battlefield. The issue of gun violence is no longer solely a matter of security, it is deeply gendered, with significant implications for public health. This report examines how militarised masculinity, political corporate alliances, and cultural narratives shape contemporary patterns of global firearm harm, drawing on evidence from gender studies and public health.

Methods

Design and approach
This report is based on an interdisciplinary review of academic literature, public health research, global epidemiological datasets, and regional violence-monitoring reports. The analytical framework draws on three complementary bodies of scholarship: political economy interpretations of the military-industrial complex, feminist security studies on militarised masculinity, and public health research examining firearm-related mortality, morbidity, and psychosocial harm. Sources were selected to capture the structural, gendered, and commercial determinants of firearm violence across diverse geographic settings.

Data sources
Global data on firearm circulation and mortality were reviewed using widely cited datasets, including the Small Arms Survey, UNODC, and regional monitoring bodies such as SEESAC. These datasets provide information on firearm ownership levels, perpetrator and victim demographics, types of violence, and cross-national patterns of harm. Public health studies documenting mental health outcomes among survivors, witnesses, and communities affected by shootings were incorporated to characterise psychosocial impacts. Literature on intimate partner violence, femicide, and suicide was used to identify gender-specific risks.

Analytic approach
Cultural and commercial influences on gun norms were examined through qualitative studies and media analyses, including research on firearm marketing, representations of masculinity in digital and entertainment media, and case studies of guns as symbols of identity and power. Policy analyses and political science scholarship were used to assess the influence of defence-industry interests and lobbying on firearm regulation and public health responses. Synthesising these sources enabled a structured examination of demographic patterns of firearm harm, the cultural and economic forces that normalise gun ownership, and the broader public health implications of these trends. The methodology is conceptual and analytical rather than statistical, aiming to integrate evidence across disciplines to illuminate how firearms function within wider systems of inequality and gendered power.

Limitation
This report does not draw on primary data and is constrained by the availability and quality of global firearm datasets, which vary substantially across regions. Many countries lack complete reporting on firearm ownership, injury, and mortality, and defence-industry lobbying is often opaque. Evidence on militarised masculinity is context-specific and may not be uniformly applicable across settings. As a conceptual synthesis rather than a statistical analysis, the report integrates findings from diverse disciplines, which introduces variability in methodological approaches. These limitations do not undermine the core conclusions but highlight the need for improved surveillance and more systematic cross-national research on firearm-related harm.

Findings

1. The global military-industrial complex and the market for guns

In the context of this report, the military industrial complex refers to the intricate network of interwoven relationships between military establishment, government institutions and private corporations that profit from the defence and arms production. This framework, rooted in C. Wright Mills’s theory of elite power, captures how corporate influence is embedded in the political making process (Highsaw, 1957). Under the mechanism of this theory, ‘national interest’ is not defined in abstract terms- since it relies heavily on corporate actors who define ‘threat’ differently- based on their location in supply chain systems and production and their overall impact on revenue and profit generation (Cox, 2014). In his analysis of US military spending after 9/11, Ronald Cox asserts that these corporate actors have distinctive characteristics, the main being their over reliance on military expenditure for their total revenues (Cox, 2014). This is what informs the threat but is not the overall determinant of US military spending. Another determinant of marketing and sustaining the defence expenditure is the creation of a ‘permanent war economy’ (Cox, 2014) where as scholars explain, military expenditure is used to boost economic growth during periods of recession and unemployment (Leslie, 2014).

This convergence is not unique to the United States; across Europe, the European Union’s emerging military-industrial complex, there is a comparable fusion of commercial, technological and defence interests visible in programmes such as the European Defence Fund that inter alia has pushed for the integration of dual-use technology into EU security policy (Newlove-Eriksson & Eriksson, 2023). Defence lobbying is notably active within the European Parliament, where influential intergroups like the Kangaroo Group and the Sky and Space Intergroup (SSI) bring together Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) around defence and security issues (Calcara et al., 2020).

2. Militarised Masculinity and the Production of Armed Identities

Flowing from the dynamics of the military-industrial complex, the gun emerges not only as a by-product of sustained military expenditure but also as an artefact through which masculinities are produced, reinforced and contested. To this day, the ideal embodiment of a soldier or warrior is masculine (Morgan, 1994). From this understanding, militarised masculinity can be defined as ‘the assertion that traits stereotypically associated with masculinity can be acquired and proven through military service or action, and combat in particular’ (Eichler, 2014). It is this notion that sustained the old age policy of conscription, an arrangement that is still evident today for instance in the Russo-Ukrainian war (Chernova & Picheta, 2025). Evidently, the policy of conscription has been widely frowned upon, with shifting attitudes in strong masculinities based on economic factors and achievements. These shifts have reshaped patriotic masculinity within a market-driven military-industrial complex. As Eichler opines, the market- being a new driver of militarised masculinity has drawn varied masculinities based on hegemonic and subordinate masculinities (Eichler, 2014). As an illustration, Western private contractors who hold the hegemony have employed mostly young men from what is referred to as Third World Countries to participate in combat, and provided manual labour in defence hubs in a new wave of neocolonialism (RLI, 2025).

Beyond the battlefield, the entanglement of ‘masculinity and guns’ finds expression in the everyday social world. Civilian gun ownership, recreational shooting and even media portrayals reflect a cultural landscape in which guns shape identities and define what power and belonging looks like for many young men. According to the ‘Precarious Manhood Theory’,(Kachel et al., 2024) the status of being a man is characterised by many complex insecurities unlike women. Since this implies that masculinity can easily be lost, men ‘overcompensate’ (Willer et al., 2013) for threats to masculinity through gun ownership. These contests on who qualifies as a real man have also been a characteristic of contemporary politics. Here, masculinity is often expressed through displays of dominance and aggression, such as bullying or ‘strongman’ behaviour. These performances reinforce gendered divisions and contribute to partisan divides based on differing ideals of manhood (Cardiff Metropolitan University, 2025). Furthermore, is the notion of apocalyptic masculinity: a cultural and political stance that promises a return to traditional social arrangements. It frames men as victims of state overreach and societal change, ‘forgotten casualties’ (An & Carlson, 2024). This vision of restoration appeals to those who see themselves as besieged by modernity and emasculated by shifting power structures. To this end, gun ownership ensures this self-reliance and independence from the state. Just as the Military Industrial Complex is shaped by capitalist market forces, civilian gun ownership is influenced by similar narratives. As economic instability, driven by state policies like regulation and globalisation, undermines men’s traditional role as providers, some men turn to the role of ‘protector’ through gun ownership as an alternative way to express their masculinity (Warner et al., 2021).

3. Cultural Framing and the Marketing of Firearms

Prevailing cultural norms have institutionalised firearm ownership as a marker of masculinity, reinforcing the perception that gun possession is an essential component of male identity and authority. According to a study by Women’s International League for Peace (WILPF), it was found that in the Afghan Pashtun ritual practice, young boys are made to bear firearms as an initiation in manhood (Greig, 2020). It is an act of honour and a sign to them to bear the responsibility to protect their families. The study shows that this honour code forms part of the backdrop for certain jihadist narratives, which associate martyrdom and suicide attacks with honour and masculine affirmation when carried out against the enemy. The same WILPF study also notes that in Cameroon and Colombia, male youths submit to a culture that promotes hypermasculinity; ‘one of the key aspects in the construction of militarised masculinities is the guidelines given to men regarding their emotions: these must be omitted and repressed at all costs…’ This emotional repression, the study notes, can manifest in violence as a coping mechanism.

This cultural conditioning is further amplified by media and marketing forces. Music often becomes part of the broader aesthetic environment in which violence, status and masculinity are represented, rather than operating as a direct cause of harm. Some forms of music have also been deliberately repurposed within violent or extremist narratives. One example involves nasheeds, traditionally spiritual Islamic songs that have been adapted into propaganda content. A nasheed produced by the Ajnad Media Foundation in 2013, which glorifies the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), has circulated on TikTok since 2021 and has been attached to nearly 15,000 videos (Doak & Cheshire, 2024). This illustrates how cultural material can be co-opted into online narratives that romanticise violence and extremism.

This narrative shaping extends into the vast and increasingly unregulated world of video games. The gaming industry, which generated an estimated $3 billion in revenue in 2023 (U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, 2022), has become a dominant cultural force. Research shows that ‘violence is a major component of masculinity, with 63.6% of male characters enacting violence, and 84.8% of the time that violence is directed against other people,’ and that ‘almost half of male video game characters (48.9%) carry a gun during gameplay’ (Duarte, 2025). These portrayals reinforce a troubling link between masculinity, violence, and firearms. Even more explicit are the marketing strategies of gun manufacturers. One of the most striking examples is Remington’s advertisement for its Bushmaster rifle, which boldly proclaimed: ‘Consider your man card reissued’ (WILPF, 2024). Such messaging not only glorifies gun ownership but also reinforces harmful notions of masculinity, framing firearms as symbols of power and identity.

4. Epidemiology of Firearm Violence

Statistics on firearm-related violence reveal a severe global crisis, with more than 250,000 fatalities recorded annually globally (SAS, 2025a). While this section cannot fully capture the magnitude or complexity of the issue, particularly given persistent underreporting in certain regions, it highlights key data pertinent to the discussion. The Small Arms Survey estimates that over one billion small arms are currently in circulation globally, approximately 85% of which are held by civilians (SAS, 2025b). Certain regions contribute disproportionately to this global supply. In the Americas, for example, Honduras, the Bahamas, and Canada trace the majority of their firearms back to the United States (49.2%, 99.2%, and 67.5% respectively) (Lowy, 2024). As one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of firearms, the United States plays a central role in global gun circulation and is itself among the nations with the highest rates of firearm-related fatalities. Alongside India, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela, it accounts for more than 67% of global firearm-related deaths (Hyder & Barberia, 2024). This underscores the urgent need to conceptualise gun violence as a multifaceted phenomenon that extends beyond traditional security paradigms. Disaggregating these statistics is therefore essential to understanding how various demographic groups, particularly women, men, and children, are uniquely affected.

5. Demographic Patterns of Firearm Violence

5.1 Women and Children
In her analysis of U.S. gun culture, Deborah Homsher quotes Women & Guns columnist Karen MacNutt, who argued: ‘Gun control is not about crime. It is about a snob elite that looks down its nose on the working men and women of this country’ (Homsher, 2002). This framing, often used to justify gun ownership, contrasts sharply with what the data reveals. The most frequent victims of gun violence are not strangers or intruders, but family members, especially women and intimate partners. According to Everytown Research and Policy, more than two-thirds of all intimate partner homicides in the United States are committed with a firearm, and 77% of these victims are women (Everytown, 2019). Guns, often kept in homes for protection, become tools of control and fatal violence. Globally, the gendered nature of gun violence is also evident. SEESAC’s April–June 2025 report shows that men accounted for 98% of known perpetrators in South East Europe, while women made up just 2% (SEESAC, 2025). In cases of femicide, firearms remain the predominant means of perpetration. From South Africa to Brazil, the statistics paint a grim picture of gendered firearm violence. In São Paulo, Brazil’s largest city, one in every five femicides reported in 2017 involved a firearm (Hinz, 2022). Together, these patterns make clear that firearm violence against women is not an exceptional occurrence but a predictable public-health failure shaped by gendered power and unequal access to safety.

Similarly, children bear the brunt of widespread gun violence across the world. In the United States, gun violence has emerged as the leading cause of death among Black youth and children, an issue that underscores not just the gendered aspect but also the racialised dimensions of firearm-related mortality (Cunningham et al., 2018). As Cook and Ludwig illustrate in their article The Cost of Gun Violence Against Children in America, the statistics reveal stark gendered and racial disparities: firearm mortality among Black males is approximately 2.4 times higher than among Hispanic males, and more than 15 times higher than among non-Hispanic White males (Cook & Ludwig, 2002). Together, these patterns underline how firearm violence against children is deeply shaped by gendered and racialised inequalities.

5.2 Men

Studying the statistics of gun violence against men must be done against the backdrop of their dual position as both predominant perpetrators and, in certain contexts, majority victims. According to SEESAC’s quarterly regional report on armed violence, most firearm-related fatalities in South East Europe resulted from public disputes, with all recorded firearm-related deaths involving men between April-June 2025 (SEESAC, 2025). On a broader scale, men account for approximately 81% of global gun homicide victims (UNODC, 2023). Gun violence also presents significant risks for men in other contexts. In the United States, for example, there is a growing epidemic of gun-related suicides. In 2023 alone, 55% of all suicide deaths in the US were committed using a firearm. Among these, older white men remain the most affected demographic; available data show that white males are approximately five times more likely to die by firearm suicide than Black males. Historically, firearm suicide rates have been highest among young white individuals; however, recent data indicates a concerning shift. The rate of gun suicides among Black youth aged 10 to 19 has surpassed that of their white peers, with firearm suicides in this demographic reaching 56% in 2023 (Center for Gun Violence Solutions & Center for Suicide Prevention, 2025).

Interpretation

Taken together, the demographic and structural patterns described above illustrate how firearm violence operates as a multifaceted public-health emergency. The debate on gun violence has long been framed around deregulation versus control, yet this overlooks its nature as a public health crisis requiring preventive, evidence-based action. Despite being recognised as a commercial determinant of health, gun violence remains underexplored in research and policy, largely due to the influence of corporate and governmental lobbying (Carlson, 2015) and the limited framing of firearm violence as a public health issue.

There have been several indicators of firearm-related crimes and existing health concerns. For instance, statistics in England reveal that adults with a history of intimate partner violence were nearly three times more likely to attempt suicide and twice as likely to engage in self-harm (McManus et al., 2022). Furthermore, studies show that young people exposed to shootings, whether as witnesses or survivors, experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress, with long-term effects on education and social development (Fowler et al., 2017).

Racial and ethnic disparities further expose how firearm violence intersects with structural inequities. In the United States, Black Americans experience firearm homicide rates nearly ten times higher than white Americans, reflecting entrenched social and structural determinants such as poverty, residential segregation, and unequal access to healthcare and safe environments (Kegler et al., 2023). These disparities expose the intersection between systemic injustice and preventable harm, showing how gun violence both arises from and perpetuates cycles of marginalisation.

Policy Implications

1. Strengthen measures that limit firearm access among high-risk individuals.
 Policies should reinforce background-check systems, enforce domestic-violence-related prohibitions, and support risk-based firearm removal mechanisms. Cross-border cooperation is essential to reduce diversion and illicit flows, particularly in regions where civilian markets are supplied by foreign manufacturers.

2. Expand mental-health and trauma-informed services.
Exposure to shootings, whether in domestic, community, or conflict settings, has profound and lasting psychological consequences. Prioritising accessible, culturally competent mental-health support in underserved communities is essential to reducing long-term harm.

3. Sustain and scale community-based violence-interruption programmes.
 Evidence from multiple contexts shows that locally grounded, non-punitive interventions can help prevent retaliation and de-escalate conflict. Stable funding and integration with public-health and social-service systems can strengthen their impact.

4. Address the cultural and gendered narratives that normalise firearms.
 Education and public-awareness initiatives should target harmful expressions of militarised masculinity and challenge norms that equate gun ownership with identity, protection, or power. Partnerships with schools, civil-society organisations, and community leaders can support these efforts.

5. Tackle the structural inequalities that shape vulnerability to firearm harm.
 Policies that reduce poverty, residential segregation, and unequal access to healthcare and safe environments are central to addressing the systemic drivers of firearm violence. Integrating public-health approaches with broader social-equity strategies is essential for long-term impact.

Conclusion

Taken together, the patterns outlined in this report demonstrate that firearm violence requires coordinated, public-health-driven responses. Gun violence is driven by structural inequities, gendered norms, and cultural narratives that normalise firearms. Policymakers should prioritise preventive, evidence-informed measures: restricting access for high-risk individuals, expanding mental-health services, supporting community-based violence-interruption programmes, and addressing underlying social inequalities. Efforts must also target cultural perceptions of masculinity and guns through education and awareness campaigns, promoting safety, equity, and community well-being.

Bibliography

  • An, M., and Carlson, J., 2024. ‘Politics at the gun counter: Examining partisanship and masculinity among conservative gun sellers during the 2020 gun purchasing surge’, Social Problems, 71(4), pp. 939-957. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spac046 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • BMJ, 2025. ‘Weapons, wealth, and health: The arms industry as a commercial determinant of health’, BMJ, pp. 390. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-086166 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Calcara, A., Csernatoni, R. and Lavallée, C., 2020. Emerging security technologies and EU governance: Actors, practices and processes. London: Routledge. Available at: https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780429351846&type=googlepdf (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University, 2025. ‘Opinion: Trump represents a specific type of masculinity – and it’s dangerous for women’, Cardiff Metropolitan University, 10 January. Available at: https://www.cardiffmet.ac.uk/news/2025/opinion-trump-represents-a-specific-type-of-masculinity–and-its-dangerous-for-women.php (Accessed: 25 November 2025). 
  • Carlson, J., 2015. Citizen-protectors: The everyday politics of guns in an age of decline. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/citizen-protectors-9780190902148?cc=ie&lang=en& (Accessed: 26 November 2025).
  • The Center for Gun Violence Solutions and The Center for Suicide Prevention, 2025. United States 2023: Examining the gun suicide epidemic. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Available at: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-06/2023-cgvs-gun-violence-in-the-united-states.pdf  (Accessed: 26 November 2025).
  • Chernova, A. and Picheta R., 2025. ‘Putin calls up 160,000 men to Russian army in latest conscription drive, at crucial moment in Ukraine war’, CNN World, 2 April. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/02/europe/putin-russia-spring-conscription-ukraine-intl (Accessed: 25 November 2025). 
  • Cook, P. J., and Ludwig, J., 2002. ‘The costs of gun violence against children’, The Future of Children, 12(2), pp. 89-99. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Cook-6/publication/11192893_The_Costs_of_Gun_Violence_against_Children/links/0c9605211ff2ead5fa000000/The-Costs-of-Gun-Violence-against-Children.pdf#page=89 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Cox, R. W., 2014. ‘The military-industrial complex and US military spending after 9/11’, Class, Race and Corporate Power, 2(2), pp. 1-20. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48645606?seq=1 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Cunningham, R. M., Walton, M. A., and Carter, P. M., 2018. ‘The major causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States’, The New England Journal of Medicine, 379(25), pp. 2468–2475. Available at: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Doak, S., and Cheshire, T., 2024. ‘The Islamic State supporters exploiting TikTok’s ‘sounds’ feature’, Sky News, 14 August. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/the-islamic-state-supporters-exploiting-tiktoks-sounds-feature-13180271 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Duarte, F., 2025. ‘How many gamers are there? (New 2025 statistics)’, Exploding Topics, 20 November. Available at: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/number-of-gamers (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Eichler, M., 2014. ‘Militarized masculinities in international relations’, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 21(1), pp. 81–93. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24591032 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Everytown Research & Policy, 2019. Guns and violence against women: America’s uniquely lethal intimate partner violence problem. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Available at: https://everytownresearch.org/report/guns-and-violence-against-women/ (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Fowler, K. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Haileyesus, T., Gutierrez, C., and Bacon, S., 2017. ‘Childhood firearm injuries in the United States’, Pediatrics, 140(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3486 (Accessed: 26 November 2025).
  • Greig, A., 2020. Men, masculinities & armed conflict: Findings from a four-country study by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF). Available at: https://www.wilpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/RL_19_WILPF-Men-Masculinities-Armed-Conflict-AW.pdf (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Highsaw, R. B., 1957. ‘The power elite. C. Wright Mills’, Chicago Journal of Politics, 19(1), pp. 144-146. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2127313 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Hinz, K., 2022. ‘How the international arms trade kills women in Brazil’, OpenDemocracy, 15 July. Available at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/brazil-international-arms-trade-killing-women-femicide/ (Accessed: 3 December 2025).
  • Homsher, D. (2002) Women and guns: Politics and the culture of firearms in America. Expanded edition. New York: Routledge. Available at: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781317451945_A24842134/preview-9781317451945_A24842134.pdf (Accessed: 2 December 2025).
  • Hyder, A. A., and Barberia, L., 2024. ‘Addressing global gun violence: A Lancet Commission on global gun violence and health’, The Lancet,  404(10465), pp. 1794-1795. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01697-0 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Kachel, S., Bloch, T., Bosson, J. K., Lorenz, L. L. and Steffens, M. C., 2024. ‘Gaining masculine power through guns? The impact of masculinity threat on attitudes toward guns’, Frontiers in Psychology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1296261 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Kegler, S. R., Simon, T. R., and Sumner, S. A., 2023. ‘Notes from the field: Firearm homicide rates, by race and ethnicity – United States, 2019–2022’, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(42), pp. 1149–1150. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7242a4 (Accessed: 26 November 2025).
  • Leslie, J., 2014. ‘The true cost of hidden money’, The New York Times, 15 June. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/opinion/a-piketty-proteges-theory-on-tax-havens.html (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Lowy, J., 2024. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: Human rights and the regulation of civilian acquisition, possession, and use of firearms, Report. Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV). Available at:  https://actiononguns.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023.01.31.GAGV-OHCHR-Report.pdf (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • McManus, S., Walby, S., Barbosa, E. C., et al. (2022). ‘Intimate partner violence, suicidality, and self-harm: A probability sample survey of the general population in England’, The Lancet Psychiatry, 9(7), pp. 574–583. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00151-1 (Accessed: 26 November 2025).
  • Morgan, D., 1994. ‘Theater of war: Combat, the military, and masculinities’, in H. Brod and M. Kaufman (eds) Theorizing masculinities. London: Sage, pp. 165–181.
  • Newlove-Eriksson, L., and Eriksson, J., 2023. ‘Conceptualizing the European military-civilian-industrial complex: The need for a helicopter perspective’, Defence Studies, 23(4), pp. 561–588. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277434 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Robert Lansing Institute (RLI), 2025. ‘Russia and African workers in the defense industry: A new chapter in neo-colonialism’, RLI, 17 June. Available at: https://lansinginstitute.org/2025/06/17/russia-and-african-workers-in-the-defense-industry-a-new-chapter-in-neo-colonialism/ (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Small Arms Survey (SAS), 2025a. ‘Global firearms holdings’, Small Arms Survey. Available at: https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/database/global-firearms-holdings (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Small Arms Survey (SAS), 2025b. Small arms survey reveals: More than one billion firearms in the world. Available at: https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/resources/SAS-Press-release-global-firearms-holdings.pdf (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC), 2025. South East Europe armed violence monitor: Quarterly regional report, April–June 2025. Available at: https://www.seesac.org/f/docs/quarterly-armed-violence-monitors_1/Regional-Quarterly-Armed-Violence-Monitor-April-June-_1.pdf (Accessed: 26 November 2025).
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2023. Global study on homicide 2023. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/Global_study_on_homicide_2023_web.pdf (Accessed: 26 November 2025).
  • U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, 2022. The committee’s investigation into gun industry practices and profits. Available at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20220727/115024/HHRG-117-GO00-20220727-SD005.pdf (Accessed: 26 November 2025).
  • Warner, T. D., Tober, T. L., Bridges, T., and Warner, D. F., 2021. ‘To provide or protect? Masculinity, economic precarity, and protective gun ownership in the United States’, Sociological Perspectives, 65(1), pp. 97-118. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121421998406 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Bridget, C., and Wojnowicz, M. T., 2013. ‘Overdoing gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis’, American Journal of Sociology, 118(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/668417 (Accessed: 25 November 2025).
  • Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. (2024, June). A desk review on militainment, militarization, gender stereotyping and the marketing of militarized masculinities.
  • Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), 2024. Submission to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to inform the High Commissioner’s report to the Human Rights Council pursuant to resolution 53/15. Available at: https://www.wilpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/WILPF_submission_gaps-for-future-steps-in-arms-and-human-rights_311024-.pdf (Accessed: 25 November 2025).