In a twist few saw coming, a recent study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine has tied gun violence not only to crime and mental health struggles, but to tooth loss. Yes, you read that correctly. According to lead author Daniel Semenza, Ph.D., of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center, firearm violence is now being implicated as a social determinant of oral health. This research, which analyzed over 20,000 census tracts in America’s 100 largest cities from 2014 to 2022, claims that neighborhoods with higher rates of shootings also suffer from lower dental care usage and higher rates of edentulism, or complete tooth loss.
A Shocking New Link: Guns and Gum Disease?
The study found that for every one shooting increase in a given neighborhood, there was a 0.01% decrease in dental visits and a 0.06% increase in edentulism the following year. That might sound like a minuscule effect, but the authors argue it’s evidence of broader health disparities caused by violence exposure. “This is the first paper to really look at the connections between dental health and violence exposure,” Semenza told The Trace. The implication is that living around gunfire leads to chronic stress and community breakdown, causing residents to neglect oral care altogether.
A Growing Field of Gun-Centered Health Claims
The study, according to journalist Fairriona Magee at The Trace, fits into a growing body of academic literature linking gun violence to a wide array of non-gun-related health issues, such as diabetes, depression, and food insecurity. Semenza and his team at Rutgers have increasingly argued that exposure to firearm violence disrupts nearly every facet of community well-being. This particular study takes it a step further, framing dental neglect and tooth loss as symptoms of the trauma and instability created by gunfire.
Mobile Dental Clinics as a Solution?
To mitigate these issues, the study suggests mobile dental clinics and integrating dental services into existing violence intervention programs. Semenza says the issue isn’t just fear, but prioritization: “A lot of people in high-violence areas may not even be prioritizing going to the dentist because they have all these other more pressing medical health issues going on.” While his concern for underserved communities is understandable, tying dental health to shootings raises serious questions about causation, correlation, and policy intentions.
The Study’s Methodology: A Closer Look
To give credit where it’s due, the study does take a robust statistical approach. It uses lagged random intercept mixed-effects models to estimate the association between violence and oral health while controlling for neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors. The data on dental care and tooth loss come from the CDC’s PLACES project, while the gun violence statistics are from the American Violence Project.
Still, the associations they found, though statistically significant, are incredibly small in magnitude. The practical implication of a single additional shooting per year correlating with 0.06% more edentulism is far from intuitive or actionable. It raises the question of whether we are interpreting marginal trends as social crises.
Tom Grieve’s Counterpoint: Crime, Not Guns, Is the Problem
Gun rights attorney and YouTuber Tom Grieve didn’t hold back in his criticism of the study. In his video about this, Grieve sarcastically described it as “the most desperate reaching-for-straws anti-gun study you’ve ever heard of.” Grieve, a former state prosecutor, pointed out what he sees as the flaw in logic: the assumption that removing guns from these communities would suddenly improve dental hygiene.
Grieve referenced FBI crime statistics to make his case, highlighting how crime is far more prevalent in large cities compared to rural areas, despite the latter often having higher poverty and higher rates of gun ownership. “Despite having a poverty rate nearly 100% worse in rural America and way more firearms, we have way less crime,” he said. “This isn’t just a firearm thing. The issue goes much deeper than that.”
The Law of Crime Concentration: A Missing Variable?
Another critical point made by Grieve is what criminologists call the “law of crime concentration.” Studies show that a tiny fraction of addresses or streets in a city often account for a majority of violent crime. This hyper-concentration suggests that geographic pockets of violence, not city-wide exposure to guns, may be the more appropriate focus when studying outcomes like healthcare access.
Grieve argues that pinning blame on the presence of firearms rather than examining crime hotspots, policing strategies, or systemic poverty oversimplifies the issue. “Bad things happen where bad things happen,” he said, summarizing the concept with blunt clarity. “You’re not going to have good dental care in a place where people are getting shot and cars are being stolen.”
The Bigger Picture: Access and Insurance
Even if one accepts the study’s findings at face value, there are bigger factors at play. Nearly 70 million Americans lack dental insurance, and around 35% didn’t visit a dentist in 2019, according to CDC data. Access to care, not fear of violence, may be the more substantial barrier. Hospital records cited by The Trace show that two-thirds of gunshot patients are either uninsured or on Medicaid, the same populations most likely to forgo routine dental care.
In this light, the root problem appears to be America’s fractured healthcare system more than its gun laws. Mobile dental programs, like NYU Dentistry’s “Smiling Faces, Going Places” van, are excellent ideas regardless of gun statistics. But it’s questionable whether targeting gun policy is the appropriate lever for increasing oral hygiene.
Policy Creep or Data-Driven Activism?
There’s no denying that studies like this play into a larger push for gun control. While the researchers don’t explicitly call for bans or restrictions, the message is hard to miss: guns aren’t just a risk to safety – they’re supposedly a barrier to overall community health. This type of narrative can be used to justify sweeping regulations, even when the data shows only marginal associations.
Grieve criticized this tendency sharply, stating, “We are not rendering anyone their due if we’re blaming access to dental care on the fact that people in the suburbs or rural America have firearms.” It’s a classic example of what he calls “emotional policymaking” – using dramatic but loosely connected research to advance regulatory agendas.
A Call for Balance and Nuance
None of this is to say gun violence isn’t a serious problem. It is. But blaming it for poor dental health feels like a stretch. Policymakers and researchers alike must draw a line between correlation and causation, especially when lives and liberties are at stake. We can and should care about underserved communities, trauma, and access to care – but let’s not make guns a scapegoat for every systemic issue.
As Grieve put it, “The only people I’m focusing my attention on are the folks who think that somehow Timmy will get better dental care if only we take away guns from people in the country area.” It’s hard to argue with that level of blunt pragmatism.
The Importance of Intentional Solutions
In the end, what this study does highlight is the importance of localized, practical solutions, like mobile dental units and trauma-informed community health programs. These are smart investments whether or not a neighborhood is plagued by violence. But to leap from “gunshots cause stress” to “gun control will fix dental health” is, frankly, unscientific.
If we want healthier communities, we need comprehensive approaches that address poverty, access to care, and violence, not ideological campaigns against the Second Amendment. Guns didn’t cause tooth decay, and taking them away won’t fix it.
We Need Action, Not Exaggeration
Research is most powerful when it invites action, not exaggeration. The study from the Rutgers-based New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center does offer meaningful insights into the health burdens of living in high-violence areas. But when The Trace and other outlets spin these insights into tacit arguments for gun control, they risk alienating the very communities they hope to help.
Let’s work toward real solutions – without conflating symptoms with causes, or liberties with liabilities.
Do you think this study missed the mark, or does it highlight something we’ve been ignoring?
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.