Run of Office 2

Right away, my campaign for the US House was in danger. The possibility of threats from gun-nuts, plus the inevitable media exposure, unnerved my wife. “I may have to leave,” she said, and mumbled something about divorce. I tried to assure her that my unfunded campaign had little chance against an incumbent. “I run just to have a platform,” I said “to show people that in the past humans have established non-violent, environmentally-responsible, vibrant, enduring societies. Beyond our differences on guns is a rich, healthy world. We can get there.” She was unmoved.

It was a futile plea anyway because without publicity, I was unknown. My name on the Oregon Secretary of State website had generated not a single invitation to speak. The campaign was dead.

Which did not dissuade political groups from sending questionnaires. Those from the right still courted division: a paragraph of propaganda was followed by yes/no - friend or foe? The question-writers seemed confused, frightened, desperate: “Do you support NASA spraying chemicals in the atmosphere over Oregon to control the weather? Yes or no?”

By contrast, questionnaires from the left, like the League of Women Voters, asked open-ended questions: “Discuss the issues that are priorities for you and how they serve your districts,” and “How will you try to reduce polarization in Congress to resolve problems?

Businesses supported my candidacy, too. Buy victory, they said. Buy lawn signs, TV ads, consulting, fundraising and ‘voter contact’. It’s all about winning with money.

On March 22, my flagging campaign turned positive. The LO Review published my Declaration of Candidacy, and immediately, a neighbor emailed: “You never asked me for money.” Another called: “How much do you need?” A stranger invited me to a forum at the old fire station in West Linn, sponsored by Independents for Progressive Action. IPA promised me an audience.

It was raining when I arrived. Eight chairs were lined up on a stage bathed in interrogation lights. The candidate for federal office (I) was to sit in the middle, among candidates for Clackamas Council, Metro, etc.

After three hours of tough, probing questions followed by knowledgeable answers from the other candidates, the moderator asked, Why did you run?

I nervously stood before rapt, judgmental progressives. “We have filled the Earth,” I began. “For millennia, male leadership, male hierarchies and male dominance were essential to human expansion. We invaded territories, conquered other people and exploited Nature.

“But we ran out of lands and enemies. Now, the male-dominated hierarchies that were necessary for expansion and conquest are afraid of obsolescence. They turn aggression and power against us, subjugating us politically and exploiting us financially. The rich and powerful concentrate wealth and power.

“In response, the people rise. First Black Lives Matter, then Women’s March, MeToo and now March for our Lives. The oppressed and disenfranchised declare: We are a global village. War and weapons of war have no place here. If men want to own guns, fine, just don’t bring them into society. If men want to shoot people, fine, go to Africa and shoot poachers.”

The progressives were silent. I walked outside into heavy rain.

The next day, at the March for our Lives, a neighbor carried a sign: “Common Sense Gun Laws – Peter Wright, District 5”.

A canvasser approached. He said he recognized my face from the night before.

I groaned. “My wife would prefer I remained anonymous.”

“I understand,” he said. “Marriages don’t survive in District 5.”

Run for Office 1

It started as a lark. A neighbor expressed her disappointment in 5th District Congressman Kurt Schrader and said, "Someone should run against him."

I was displeased with Schrader's support of HR-38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Expanded background checks were an insufficient trade-off, as far as I was concerned. Background checks should be expanded regardless, and "reciprocity" defeated regardless. Giving more men permission to carry more guns in more places is not a solution to the violence of men with guns.

Then came St. Valentine's Day. I filled out the form on the Secretary of State's website and mailed it with a $100 check. Not that I wanted to be a U.S. representative. Nor that I even intended to campaign. In fact, I expected my wife to learn of this whimsy the day she saw my name on the ballot. My intention in filing was to register a protest, to let Schrader know that I and other constituents were serious about taking steps to stop gun violence, and we wanted him to represent our position.

To publish my name and position in the Voter's Pamphlet cost $2,500. That was prohibitive. So, I thought, I'll just have to leave publication of my views to fate.

On March 12, a week after the filing deadline, three letters arrived, all pertaining to the race. The largest envelope came First Class from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. Inside was a questionnaire headlined "NRA-Political Victory Fund." It asked for my address, home phone number, email address and social media accounts. Right away, I felt vulnerable. Intimidated.

Inside, 23 single-paragraph statements addressed issues from 'reciprocity' to the ability of states and victims to sue gun manufacturers for the deaths and injuries caused by products designed to cause death and injury. Following each statement was, "A. I agree with the NRA and would vote for ... ," and "B. I disagree with the NRA and would oppose ...." The 24th question asked if I was a member of the NRA or any other gun-related club, and to list them.

The return envelope had no stamp.

A second questionnaire, from the Oregon Family Council, required no personal information — which made it less threatening — and its 20 questions, although they leaned right, were less blatantly divisive. In fact, the first few questions were relatively neutral, or at least were written in such a way that an agenda was not obvious. For example: "Do you support or oppose the kicker law?"

But soon, the questions clearly sought to persuade a candidate to declare his positions on various freedoms, with clear leanings toward "religious" freedom and against personal freedom, family freedom and marriage freedom. One question asked, "Do you support or oppose the use of state tax dollars for abortion?" I wanted to write in the blank, "Do you support or oppose the use of state tax dollars to clean up after gun violence?"

The OFC promised to send out 250,000 pamphlets. I answered the questions and sent in the questionnaire.

Finally, last Monday, I received an email from oregonfirearms.org. The logo for Oregon Firearms Federation is a map of Oregon with OFF superimposed on it in upper-case block letters, and on top of that an assault rifle. Their questionnaire screamed gun-rights propaganda. Even though they asked for no personal information, I was suddenly afraid. What could an unarmed 74-year-old do against virulent gunmen?

The Congressional race had begun.

Men, Guns and Society

Why do men shoot unarmed civilians - girlfriends, ex-wives, co-workers, students, shoppers, spectators, children? What drives them to kill masses of innocent, law-abiding Americans?

The common claim is that mass shooters are mentally ill. And, to be sure, anyone who would use a gun against unarmed church goers and school kids is ‘crazy’. But mental illness occurs throughout society. If it were a significant cause, we’d see girls, grannies and grandpas blasting away in malls and theaters. But we see only men. And those men are almost always between the age of 15 and 50. So, it would be vastly more accurate to place blame for mass shootings on masculinity than on mental illness.

Masculinity, as measured by testosterone levels, increases rapidly until the age of 20, and then declines 1.25% per year. Men 15 to 50 have high levels of testosterone - levels that are associated with most mass killers.

Does that mean high testosterone levels cause mass shootings? No. But a high level of testosterone is present in all mass shootings. The only other factors present in all mass shootings are masses of people and guns. Men with loaded guns among people – even among close friends and family - is a lethal combination. A gun in a home is seven times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

Until this millennium, society needed men who were killers. It needed them for military service, as fighters and warriors, as protectors and defenders. Aggressive, belligerent men have been essential to our well-being, prosperity and survival.

But what do we do when the killers, when those whom we’ve trusted to protect us, turn their testosterone-fueled aggression against us, when they turn their anger and hatred against the very people they’re supposed to protect? What can we do when we find ourselves in the cross-hairs?

Very, very few men actually turn their semiautomatics against the innocent and the unarmed. Compared to the number of high-testosterone men who own guns, the number who injure, maim and snuff out unsuspecting citizens is miniscule. “So,” men would say, “there are a few bad apples. What’s the big deal?”

One “bad apple” kills, on average, fifteen people. From among the 9,400,000 men who stockpile weapons, ‘a few’ is too many. But even more alarming is the high percentage of the 9.4 million who turn their testosterone-fueled aggression against the public in open forums, in court cases and through contributions to organizations that make it easier for killers to buy weapons and go on killing sprees. What appalls us, and frightens us, is the large segment of the male population that sides with the killers against society. We say, “Protect us,” and men reply, “No! We would rather protect the shooters.”

We cry out, “Hundreds of our friends have been slaughtered by men with assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. High-velocity bullets have splintered children’s bones and scrambled brains. Neighbors have been threatened, crippled and butchered. You are the men. You are the strongest, richest and most powerful segment of society. You are supposed to protect us – women, children, everyone. Instead, you are a major threat, a major cause of fear and death.”

Unmoved by our pleas, men respond, “We have a right to arm ourselves.”

“Of course you do,” we say, then ask, “But tell us, against whom do you arm yourselves? Against an attack by toddlers? Geezers? Wives and mothers?”

Men answer, “No. We must protect ourselves from men, from men with guns.”

It’s at that moment, perhaps, that gunmen will see they’ve been duped into believing they are a solution when in fact they are the problem.

Malheur Standoff and LaPierre

The standoff at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge points out the absurdity of NRA chief Wayne LaPierre's statement that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." The armed trespassers in Malheur believe they are the good guys. Which means they believe it's OK to shoot any armed men who try to remove them from the Refuge, including the police and FBI. The police and FBI, however, see themselves as the good guys. Who's right?

According to LaPierre, the only way to find out may be for one group of gunmen to shoot the other group of gunmen. Those still alive after the shootout have proven they're the good guys. The winners write the history. Might makes right. But what else could we expect from the NRA?

Let's consider a Gandhian alternative. Bundy has said his men will not shoot first. So, give them no reason to shoot. 1) send the trespassers a list of crimes with which they'll be charged and the likely sentences if convicted. 2) tell the trespassers that unarmed officers will enter the Refuge the next day to arrest them for those crimes. 3) tell the trespassers that if they commit more crimes, such as resisting arrest, they will be charged accordingly. 4), send in the unarmed officers (equipped with cameras) to handcuff the trespassers and lead them out.

The unarmed officers would, of course, have to be volunteers. Studies suggest that females would meet less resistance.