Welcome to Daniel's Blog

As a researcher and faculty member at Rutgers University, I’ve dedicated my career to understanding how violence shapes public health and, most importantly, how we can prevent it. I serve as an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice at Rutgers–Camden, and I’m also a faculty member in the Department of Urban–Global Public Health in the School of Public Health at Rutgers. In my role as Director of Research at the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center (GVRC), I work alongside colleagues across disciplines to study the causes and consequences of gun violence and identify solutions that keep communities safe.

Much of my work has focused on the ripple effects of violence. While shootings and homicides understandably draw headlines, the harm they cause reverberates through families, neighborhoods, and entire communities. These effects can be physical, emotional, and psychological, and they often persist long after the shooting takes place. The consequences of gun violence for collective health run deeper than we’ve previously understood, raising the stakes for bold, comprehensive prevention. Right now, I’m finishing up a book on this very issue for Princeton University Press called The Toll It Takes: How Gun Violence Shapes Public Health and Inequality in America.

Here in New Jersey, our research at the GVRC has examined everything from the effects of exposure to firearm violence on mental health to racial disparities in exposure to the impacts on dental health. We also work closely with community organizations, public agencies, and policymakers to make sure our findings help inform real-world change.

A new study my colleagues and I recently published in Social Science & Medicine builds on this mission by looking at the connection between two of the most serious public health crises in the United States: homicide and suicide. While these forms of violence are often studied separately, they are deeply interconnected in ways that can affect whole communities.

Using data from every U.S. county over a 50-year period (1968–2019), we examined whether increases in homicide rates were followed by increases in suicide rates. Our approach used a quasi-experimental statistical method that allowed us to better account for other factors and test for a causal relationship. We also looked at differences by race, whether firearms were involved, and whether the county was urban, suburban, or rural.

The results were clear: higher homicide rates predicted higher suicide rates the following year. This link was especially strong when firearms were involved. For example, we found that a one-unit increase in the firearm homicide rate was associated with a 5.7% increase in the firearm suicide rate the following year. These patterns were most pronounced in certain contexts—particularly among White populations and in rural counties.

Why might this be happening? The findings align with long-standing theories in sociology and psychology. Exposure to violence can erode feelings of safety, trust, and belonging, which are vital for good mental health. In some cases, it can also increase what psychologists call the “capability for suicide,” or a reduced fear of death and greater familiarity with lethal means, especially firearms. At the community level, rising violence can weaken social ties and collective support systems, creating conditions that increase suicide risk even among people who aren’t directly victimized.

We also found notable racial differences. For White populations, increases in homicide were strongly linked to increases in suicide. For Black populations, the effects were much smaller. This doesn’t mean violence is less harmful in Black communities; rather, it suggests that the social dynamics and coping mechanisms may differ. Factors like community resilience, religious involvement, and long-term adaptation to structural adversity could shape how violence translates into suicide risk.

The urban–rural differences were also striking. While suicide rates are generally higher in rural areas, we found that the homicide–suicide link grew stronger as counties became more rural. This may be due in part to limited access to mental health services and the tight-knit nature of rural communities, where distress can spread through social networks more quickly after a tragedy.

These findings point to an important takeaway: preventing homicide may also help prevent suicide. Too often, violence prevention and suicide prevention are treated as separate issues, with separate funding streams, organizations, and strategies. But our research suggests that they should be addressed together. Reducing violence in communities, especially firearm violence, could have benefits that extend well beyond lowering homicide rates.

At the GVRC, we’re committed to using evidence like this to push for comprehensive prevention strategies. That means working on policies that reduce access to lethal means, investing in community-based violence interruption programs that work, and expanding access to mental health care, especially in areas where resources are scarce.

The connection between homicide and suicide is a reminder that violence is not just about individual acts; it’s about the broader social environments we live in. When violence rises, the harm it causes can cascade through communities in ways that aren’t always visible but are no less deadly. By addressing these issues together, we have a better chance of breaking these cycles and saving lives.