Republican challenger to US Rep. Seth Magaziner must be accountable for his role in the January 6 insurrection

Magaziner invites D.C. police officers to talk about Victor Mellor’s participation in the January 6 Capitol attack

Steve Ahlquist

Harry Dunn, Seth Magaziner, and Daniel Hodges

In opposition to Republican challenger Victor Mellor’s campaign for Congress, incumbent U.S. Representative Seth Magaziner (D-RI) (whose district includes Charlestown) stood outside the Rhode Island State House on Thursday alongside two police officers, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, who fought to defend the U.S. Capitol during the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Mellor has spoken proudly about his participation in the riot, calling it one of the “top 5” moments of his life and saying, “I’m a J6er, and will not apologize for it.”

Here’s the video: Magaziner v Mellor - YouTube

Representative Magaziner condemned the January 6 United States Capitol attack and Donald Trump’s pardons for the rioters, which included those found guilty of assaulting law enforcement officers.

Mellor's campaign in a nutshell (photo by Tom Ferrio)

“Five years ago, a violent mob attacked our nation’s Capitol and the police officers sworn to protect it,” said Representative Magaziner. “They did this because they wanted to overturn a presidential election. Their candidate, Donald Trump, lost that election, so they tried to stop the count through violence and rob the American people of their voice.

“The rioters punched and trampled police officers, beat them with sticks and rocks, sprayed them with mace, and electrocuted them with tasers. Over 170 officers suffered injuries, including broken bones and concussions. Four officers died by suicide in the months that followed. Hundreds of Capitol and DC Metropolitan Police officers bravely did their duty that day and put their lives in harm’s way to protect the building and our democracy. We must not forget the sacrifices that those officers made, or let anyone rewrite the history of what happened on January 6, 2021.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: Vic Mellor is a registered agent of the government of Cuba. Here's a screenshot of Mellor's filing showing which Cuban government entities he represents. Mellor also needs to explain this.

Maine ICE agent linked to fatal shooting has history of domestic violence accusations

The checkered past of ICE agent David Brouillette

Mel Leonor Barclay, Politics Reporter

This story was originally reported by Mel Leonor Barclay of The 19th. Meet Mel and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

The man identified as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who fatally shot a Colombian immigrant in Maine on Monday had a documented history of domestic violence against two previous wives and his daughters, according to reporting by the Associated Press.

The AP reported Thursday that the agent, David Brouillette, had a long history of verbal and physical abuse documented in the state’s family court system. Two women who were once married to Brouillette also spoke to the AP, detailing the abuse they say Brouillette subjected them to. 

Multiple reports of domestic violence incidents against Brouillette raise questions about the agency’s hiring practices as it rapidly grew its ranks to carry out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

The death of 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a Colombian national who was shot and killed Monday while in his car with his wife and daughter, is the latest killing resulting from interactions with immigration officials. 

Ashley Brouillette, who divorced David Brouillette in 2009, said her ex-husband became physically violent with her after she got pregnant with their daughter. Once, she said, Brouillette threw boiling water at her while she was holding their child. 

She said the abuse continued after their divorce. Late last year, Ashley Brouillette said, her ex-husband left her a voicemail, which she shared with the AP, in which he suggested that she and other women in her “bloodline” should die. 

“And all of you should have your f——--g throats cut,” the voicemail said, the AP reported. “Yeah, you should. Am I threatening that I’m gonna do that? Nope. Nope. But do I think that you should have your f——-g throats cuts? Or should have had them cut? Yep.”

I received a message from the Florida MAGAnut who wants to be my US Representative

Another MAGA outlier wants to represent Charlestown

By Will Collette

It’s pretty unusual to get an e-mail from a candidate for the US Congress that serves as a rebuttal to a speech by a state Governor, in this case Dan McKee and his State of the State address to the General Assembly.

It’s even more unusual when that candidate doesn’t even live here. The candidate is Victor Mellor, an ultra-MAGA nut who lives in a colony he built to house himself and like-minded rightwing loonies. Mellor went through the motions of renting an apartment in Rhode Island so he could run against our outstanding US District 2 Representative Seth Magaziner.

Mellor was born in Woonsocket but has been living in Florida for the past 30 years. 

In 1994, his ex-wife in Woonsocket filed criminal charges against Mellor for beating and attempting to kill her. After leaving for Florida, Mellor again faced criminal charges in 1998 for allegedly beating his live-in girlfriend with a closed fist on at least 4 occasions.

Mellor was not tried or convicted in either case and told the Providence Journal “My past doesn't define me." Maybe Mellor should hire local attorney Leah Boisclair to help him explain his past. Boisclair calls herself a “Sex Crime Defense Attorney” and wants to unseat our state Representative Tina Spears (Democrat, District 36) in the upcoming Democratic Primary.

Mellor was a January 6 insurrectionist and told the Providence Journal that January 6 was among the “top 5” moments of his life.

I make no secret of my dislike for Dan McKee, but in my opinion, Mellor doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His news release proves it: Mellor seems to have no purpose in making this statement against McKee’s speech other than to allow him to tout his undying loyalty to Donald Trump and his hateful MAGA policies.

Here is Mellor’s statement. I added my own notes in Bold Red.

Mellor: “Rhode Islanders Need Results, Not Rhetoric.”

Victor Mellor, U.S Congressional Candidate, gives response to Rhode Island’s State of the State Address.

Governor Dan McKee’s State of the State address spoke at length about programs and promises but failed to acknowledge the real consequences of years of rising costs, shrinking opportunity, and families being pushed closer to the edge every month.

I agree with the Minority Leader that Rhode Islanders are being asked to accept more government while receiving less relief.

Will Collette: Like Mellor would know from his gated compound in Florida. I wonder if he even knows the Minority Leader’s name.

From a congressional standpoint, the path forward is clear.

First, we must restore accountability and results. Under President Trump’s administration, federal policies have already begun moving the country in the right direction, strengthening national security, restoring fiscal discipline, and prioritizing American citizens. The problem is not federal inaction; it’s state leadership that has failed to fully leverage these reforms for Rhode Island families.

WC: Donald Trump himself admits that he is accountable to no one and nothing other than his own “morality.” He’s “moving the country in the right direction?” How? By declaring war on our allies, building gold battleships, running the most corrupt regime in our history, pushing white supremacy and racism? “Fiscal discipline?” Yeah, like destroying the White House to build a $400 million gold ballroom, giving tax breaks and pardons to oligarchs and pedos, imposing a national sales tax (tariffs) and throwing hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. I don’t know if we can stand three more years of such “progress.”

As a member of Congress, I will work directly with state legislators to bring maritime and defense contracts back to Rhode Island, contracts that mean good-paying jobs, skilled trades, and long-term economic stability, especially in a state with deep naval and maritime roots. That’s how we rebuild a working-class economy.

WC: Yeah sure, the same way that Trump tried to strangle those same industries with his relentless attack on offshore wind, a move bitterly criticized by those same construction and maritime workers.

Second, we must be honest about workforce development. Not every child wants or needs a four-year college degree. I strongly support Career and Technical Education and skilled trades programs that prepare students for real careers. Rhode Island should be producing welders, electricians, shipbuilders, technicians, and engineers.

WC: No one disagrees with expanding educational opportunities, except maybe Donald Trump who is destroying public education by cutting funds and killing the US Department of Education. Mellor fails to mention the crippling effect of Trump’s attack on science, research and health care. This not only cost Rhode Island thousands of jobs but also hobbled cancer research and is exposing Americans to preventable, potentially deadly diseases.

Third, our priorities must be clear: Rhode Island citizens come first. Public resources should serve the people who live, work, and pay taxes here, not incentivize illegal immigration while residents are told to do more with less.

WC: Sure, send in the ICE stormtroopers. Beat, pepper spray, arrest and detain without charges or legal counsel anyone, US citizen or not, who can’t produce proof of citizenship that these illiterate goons will accept. These immigrants so hated by MAGA grow our food, build our homes, look after the elderly and pay their taxes. They would love the chance to live here as legal citizens as our own parents, grandparents and great grandparents did.

Finally, we must address energy costs honestly. Rhode Islanders endure some of the highest heating costs in the nation, especially during our frigid winters. Energy prices will not come down by doubling down on the most expensive forms of energy available. Allowing pipeline access for affordable heating fuel would provide immediate relief to families and seniors, while offshore wind continues to drive costs up.

WC: Destroying the renewable energy industry is not the way. Green energy costs are beating fossil fuels. Bringing back coal will cost lives and productivity from pollution-caused illness. It’s a bald-faced lie that offshore wind is raising costs.

Leadership is not about managing decline; it’s about changing direction, when necessary, even when it’s not popular.

As a constitutional conservative and supporter of President Trump’s America First agenda, I will fight to ensure federal policy lowers costs, creates jobs, strengthens national security, and restores common sense. Rhode Islanders deserve leadership that delivers results.

WC: All evidence to the contrary in the first year of Dear Leader’s second term.

Rhode Islanders are hardworking, resilient, and proud of this state. We deserve leadership that lowers costs, creates opportunities, and puts citizens first. As a member of Congress, I will work every day to deliver real results, not rhetoric, and ensure Rhode Island has a stronger voice in Washington.

WC: Rhetoric. Really? How about cutting food prices on Day One? Ending Russia’s war on Ukraine on Day One? Making health care affordable? Making housing affordable? How about defending the Constitution? My advice, Vic: stay in Florida.

Read on about the cult camp Victor Mellor, carpet-bagging challenger to Rep. Seth Magaziner, runs in Florida:

UPDATE: Asst. Charlestown Solicitor Bob Craven ends campaign for Attorney General after only four days.

Former Assistant Atty Gen. Keith Hoffman becomes second official candidate to replace term-limited Peter Neronha

By Will Collette

UPDATE: After his disastrous campaign launch, described below, Bob Craven announced today (Thursday) that he was ending his campaign for Attorney General. In a statement described by WPRI "The 69-year-old said he was making the decision “because my family — and my sobriety — must come first,” and out of a “genuine desire to protect my family from further pain.”

WPRI described additional legal problems in Craven's past. Craven's statement referred to the 2001 domestic violence charge brought against him:

“I spent yesterday with my family, discussing the events of that night more than 20 years ago,” he said. “Understandably, it is something we rarely talk about — it was the darkest moment of my life, and my family’s. As we spoke, I learned more details about my conduct that night — details that had been lost in the fog of too much alcohol. I do not say that by way of excuse, but by way of explanation.”

Incumbent RI Attorney General Peter Neronha is term-limited from running for another term in 2026. A likely three-way race for the Democratic nomination to become his successor is underway.

Neronha has anointed his former Assistant AG Keith Hoffman as the best person to continue Neronha's on-going battle with the Trump regime over assaults on civil rights and Draconian budget cuts. 

Hoffman had a smooth launch that featured Neronha's support. This is in sharp contrast to Bob Craven's day one gaffe where he claimed to have received the endorsement of the RI Coalition Against Domestic Violence in 2024. The Coalition asserts he did not get their endorsement. 

RICADV is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and as their director Brianna Henries said:

“We do not make political endorsements. Nor do we engage in any electioneering or political campaign matters involving any candidates for public office.” 

Craven acknowledged his error, as reported by WPRI:

“The inclusion of an endorsement by the Coalition Against Domestic Violence was an honest mistake due in part to similarities with the name of another advocacy group,” he said, an apparent reference to the R.I. Coalition Against Gun Violence.

WPRI Target 12 reporters tied this gaffe to Craven's previous legal problems:

"Family Court records reviewed by Target 12 confirm Craven was arrested by North Kingstown police on Aug. 31, 2001. The records show Craven was “removed” from the home and a judge later granted a restraining order sought by his estranged wife. (They later reconciled.)

"While Craven’s campaign told The Boston Globe that the case was later dismissed, court records for the matter are no longer available, likely because the records were expunged.

"The Globe reported that Craven was involved in a second incident where he was charged with simple assault, but Craven said it did not involve his wife. That case, too, is no longer available in court records."

In my opinion, this is obviously a bad way to start a campaign, and it could nip Craven's ambitions in the bud. However, it's a year until the 2026 election and almost a year away from the Democratic primary. Given voters' short attention spans, maybe it's better to screw up early than closer to election day. That assumes that there will be no further mention of Craven's gaffe or his past legal problems.

Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration’s Unlawful Restrictions on Violence Against Women Act Grants

Judge rules Trump was wrong to pull back grants for domestic violence prevention

ACLU of Rhode Island

A federal court in Rhode Island on August 8 issued a preliminary order blocking the Trump-Vance administration from enforcing many of the new unlawful restrictions on grants from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women. 

The ruling is a major relief for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault and the state coalitions — including the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence — and service providers and community organizations that support them.

The court’s decision halts dangerous new requirements that made it impossible for many grantees to operate legally or effectively. These restrictions threatened to cut off life-saving resources to survivors, especially those from marginalized communities.

Seventeen state coalitions challenged the unlawful restrictions, arguing that the administration had overstepped its authority and violated statutory requirements established by the Violence Against Women Act.

ACLU of Rhode Island sues to stop Trump from restricting housing and violence prevention grants

“These harmful funding conditions jeopardize decades of progress in how we care for survivors and prevent domestic violence”

By Alexander Castro, Rhode Island Current

A nationwide coalition of organizations serving domestic violence survivors and unhoused people — including six based in Rhode Island — is challenging new conditions on federal housing and violence prevention grants set by the Trump administration, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island announced.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island in Providence against five federal agencies and their respective agency heads involves 22 plaintiffs in 14 states and the District of Columbia. 

They are seeking to block stricter eligibility requirements revolving around the Trump administration’s efforts not to fund programs or organizations that support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or what it dubs “gender ideology.” 

The defendants include U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner. 

Plaintiffs claim that HHS’ recent attempts to limit eligibility based on factors like diversity and gender identity is an unconstitutional maneuver that will imperil the people served by these groups, such as women and children experiencing homelessness. The plaintiffs want the court to vacate the new eligibility requirements. They are also seeking a temporary restraining order against HHS to free up funds for relevant programs.

Basic Human Needs Are Not Fair Game for Billionaire Tax Cuts

Providence schoolteacher describes her dream of financial independence

By Marisa Pesce 

Tens of millions of Americans rely on the public assistance programs — like Medicaid, SNAP, housing aid, and more — that Republican leaders are now threatening to gut.

I’m one of them.

My dream is to regain the financial independence I once enjoyed before life and systemic obstacles got in the way. I come from a family with a history of mental illness and domestic abuse, and I’ve suffered through mental health challenges myself.

I’ve always worked hard. After high school, I earned a college degree and found the calling of being a teacher. I earned and paid for my Master’s degree while teaching full time as a high school math teacher. I still struggled with challenges, but life was good. The system had worked. I had a home and was financially independent.

Then, I was the victim of a major, life changing domestic violence event, and my life started to unwind. I had to relocate to another state where I didn’t have a place to call home, my benefits were less, and my mental illness was exacerbated by the isolation and trauma.

Despite the challenges I faced, I was able to find some needed assistance for food and mental health care as I got on my feet.

Also known as “food stamps,” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was a godsend for helping me put food on the table. Throughout my life both Medicaid and Medicare have helped with mental health treatment, and the Supplemental Security Disability Income (SSDI) program helped keep me out of poverty.

Comparing Trump's and Harris's actual records on health care

Skip the rhetoric and look at the facts

Zachary W. Schulz, Auburn University

The presidential debate on Sept. 10, 2024, did not add much context to what
the two candidates would do on health care beyond their own records. 
Visual China Group/Getty Images

Health care is a defining issue in the 2024 election – Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican contender Donald Trump have starkly different records on the issue. 

Rather than focusing on what they promise to do, let’s examine what their past actions reveal about their approaches to Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, public health infrastructure, drug policy and child abuse and domestic violence prevention.

As a specialist in public health history and policy, I have carefully examined both candidates’ records on American health care. With years of experience in the health care field and being a cystic fibrosis patient myself, I have developed a deep understanding of our health care system and the political dynamics that shape it.

For me, as for many other Americans, health care is more than just a political issue; it is a deeply personal one.

Charlestown Senior Citizens Commission Introduces LIFEWISE!

 

We LOVE women

A defeat for guns and another reason why Clarence Thomas must resign

Why Doctors Avoid Talking With Patients About Gun Safety

Takes guts

By Jenna Jakubisin

By Adam Zyglis

In November 2021, a teenager with a handgun killed four students and injured seven people at Oxford High School, near Detroit. It was the deadliest school shooting in Michigan history. Just this month, on Feb. 6, the shooter’s mother was convicted on four counts of involuntary manslaughter. 

During a trial that scrutinized safe gun storage — or rather, a lack thereof — prosecutors alleged she failed to secure the gun at home and ignored warning signs about her son’s mental health.

Gun violence in the U.S. is a public health crisis. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021 was the second consecutive year in which guns were the leading cause of death among American children and teens. 

That year, nearly 49,000 people died from guns — equivalent to one person every 11 minutes. A report from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health showed that gun ownership sharply increases the risk of dying by homicide and suicide.

As gun deaths increase, it’s more important than ever for doctors to prioritize gun safety discussions with patients. But a recent study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine showed that the extent of this practice is unclear.

At the time of the Oxford shooting, the study’s lead author, Joseph Ladines-Lim, was a second-year resident in the University of Michigan’s combined internal medicine and pediatrics program in Ann Arbor. In the tragedy’s aftermath, Ladines-Lim and colleagues launched a research project examining the practice of firearms screening at their institution.

Maybe this should come in spray form, maybe mixed with Mace

Sniffing women’s tears reduces male aggression

By PLOS 

New research, published on December 21^st in the open-access journal PLOS Biology, shows that tears from women contain chemicals that block aggression in men. 

The study led by Shani Agron at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, finds that sniffing tears leads to reduced brain activity related to aggression, which results in less aggressive behavior.

Trump's Supreme Court majority will decide if domestic abusers can have guns.

Lives Could Be at Stake.

By Paige Pfleger, WPLN/Nashville Public Radio and ProPublica

As America emerged from the pandemic, communities continued to experience a rising tide of gun violence. School shootings and the rate of children and teens killed by gunfire both reached all-time highs since at least 1999. 

ProPublica’s coverage of gun violence reveals how first responders, policymakers and those directly affected are coping with the bloodshed.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a pivotal firearms case that could have profound implications for how police and courts deal with domestic violence.

The question: Should people who are placed under domestic violence protection orders also lose access to their guns?

For many victim advocates, the answer is obvious. Women are five times more likely to be killed in a domestic violence incident when the abuser has access to a gun. Advocates argue that the gun restrictions tied to such orders are among the most powerful tools for domestic violence victims and that without them, more people will die.

For gun rights groups and their most ardent supporters, that is beside the point. They contend that people subject to protection orders haven’t been convicted of a crime and that taking their firearms away violates the Second Amendment. If the government can disarm them, they ask, who could the government disarm next?

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with gun rights supporters, invalidating a federal law passed by Congress in 1994 that bars people under domestic violence orders from having firearms.

If the Supreme Court upholds that decision and rules that gun restrictions tied to restraining orders are unconstitutional, states would have fewer options to stop domestic abusers from possessing, and using, guns. And in conservative states, the aggressive rollback of gun control laws means that it is already easier for people to get guns to begin with.

This year, WPLN and ProPublica have been reporting on the issue at the heart of the Supreme Court case: the difficulty of separating domestic abusers from their guns. The court’s ruling could have immense ramifications in Tennessee, where weak enforcement of gun laws has allowed firearms to slip through the cracks with deadly consequences. 

Passing the EACA is good for families, indicates study

Equality in Abortion Coverage Act tries to provide all pregnant people access to the full range of reproductive health services

By Steve Ahlquist

The Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the Equality in Abortion Coverage Act (EACA) during a rare Monday afternoon session. 

The EACA would eliminate the state policy that withholds health coverage for abortion in both the Medicaid program and the state’s employee health plan. You can watch the full hearing here:

The EACA (H5006), said bill sponsor Representative Katherine Kazarian (Democrat, District 63, East Providence), “is a simple bill that addresses a simple issue. This bill would fix the inequality in insurance coverage for abortion access in Rhode Island. Right now an abortion is the only medical procedure that is not covered by all types of medical insurance plans offered in our state.”

Representative Kazarian also stated that “abortion is healthcare” – a claim belied by the policy of House leadership to hear bills on abortion in the Judiciary Committee, which deals with issues of legality, instead of the House Health and Human Services Committee, which, as the name suggests, deals with health issues. Representative Kazarian, a member of House leadership, took over the EACA legislation this year after the House failed to pass the bill in previous years when it was submitted by former Representative Liana Cassar. 

The day after session ended last year, the United States Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. [See: 21 members of the House implored Speaker Shekarchi to bring the EACA to a vote – to no avail]

More consequences of the Trump Court

A judge in Texas is using a recent Supreme Court ruling to allow domestic abusers to keep their guns

April M. Zeoli, University of Michigan and Shannon Frattaroli, Johns Hopkins University

Taking guns from abusers saves lives.
 Kameleon007 via Getty Images

For a large part of the history of the United States, domestic abuse was tolerated under the nation’s legal system. There were few laws criminalizing domestic violence, and enforcement of the existing laws was rare.

It was only in the past few decades that laws criminalizing domestic violence came to be widespread and enforced. But now, the U.S. is in danger of backtracking on that legal framework precisely because of the nation’s historical legacy of turning a blind eye to domestic violence.

On Nov. 10, 2022, a judge in the Western District of Texas struck down the federal law that prohibits access to guns for people subject to domestic violence protection orders. He did this based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, NYSRPA v. Bruen, which held that, to be constitutional, a firearm restriction must be analogous to laws that were in existence when the country was founded. 

In other words, disarming domestic abusers violates the Second Amendment because those types of laws didn’t exist at the founding of the country.

In a separate, but related, case, the 5th U.S. Circuit of Court of Appeals on Feb 1. sided with the Texas judge, ruling that the federal ban was unconstitutional. The Justice Department has indicated that it will appeal.

We study the link between gun laws and domestic violence in the U.S. and know that backtracking on laws that prevent the perpetrators of domestic violence from getting their hands on guns will put lives at risk – the research has proved this time and time again.

Those were the days

 

Would closing the ‘boyfriend loophole’ in gun legislation save lives?

Here’s what the research says

April M. Zeoli, Michigan State University

Preventing people with domestic violence records obtaining
guns would be a life-saver. 
Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The U.S. Congress  passed a bipartisan gun safety bill that would represent the first federal gun safety legislation to be passed in a generation.

The proposed law is limited in scope, but among the provisions is a proposal to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” which allows some people with a record of domestic violence to still buy firearms.

April Zeoli, at Michigan State University, researches the link between intimate partner violence, homicide and gun laws. She explains what the proposed change would mean – and why it would save lives.

What is the boyfriend loophole?

Under current federal legislation, intimate partner relationships are defined only as those in which two people are or were married, live or lived together as a couple, or have a child together. People who were in a dating relationship are largely excluded from this definition.

As a result, dating partners are exempt from federal laws that prohibit those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanor crimes, or those who are under domestic violence restraining orders, from buying or possessing a firearm. This is what is referred to as the “boyfriend loophole”.

To put it another way, if you have two domestic abusers who have both committed the same severe physical violence against their partners, but one of them is married to their intimate partner while the other isn’t, then only the domestic abuser who is married could be prohibited from having a gun.

An expert on trends in gun sales and gun violence in pandemic America

Why so many guns?

Garen Wintemute, University of California, Davis

Most people buy guns for protection. The hat might be a clue.
(Mike Pont/Getty Images News via Getty Images)

Gun sales have risen in recent years, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On Feb. 28, 2022, SciLine interviewed Garen Wintemute – an emergency medicine physician at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center and director of the California Firearm Violence Research Center – about what’s driving this change and what gun usage and culture looks like in America two years into the pandemic.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, which have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Another way the pandemic hurts

Intimate partner violence has increased during pandemic, emerging evidence suggests 

Megan Stubbs-Richardson, Mississippi State University and H. Colleen Sinclair, Mississippi State University

During a pandemic, the victim is quarantined with the perpetrator.
 kieferpix via Getty Images 

As we face rising COVID infection rates, the possibility of additional quarantines rises. Although stay-at-home orders might protect individuals from the virus, home isn’t safe for everyone. 

Studies show that domestic violence calls to police and shelters in the U.S. have risen between 6% and 21% (variation depending on data source) since the start of the pandemic, with the largest increase happening the first five weeks of quarantine.

Calls to shelters and hotlines have also increased. Google searches for information about domestic violence hotlines have also gone up, with spikes last April, a time when most of the U.S. was under stay-at-home orders.

This is not surprising to those of us who study domestic violence. With COVID-19 came higher unemployment and financial strain, both correlated with domestic violence. As quarantines and social distancing continue, isolation increases, social support lessens, mobility decreases, access to resources is strained, and stress from the changes in routine, like work and school closures, rises. Life is turned upside down.

As researchers who study intimate partner violence, we know the pandemic has only exacerbated many of the risk factors for the escalation of violence. One example: Partners’ spending more time together than usual, such as during the holidays, increases risks of family violence.

Stress, economic hardship, a lack of social support, gun ownership, lower educational status, and drug or alcohol abuse are risk factors for intimate partner violence. All of these factors are exacerbated during a pandemic.