“We want to continue in any way we can to reduce these mass shootings,” said Anne M. Finucane, Vice Chairman at Bank of America, in an interview after declaring the company cut off their funding to manufacturers of “military-style weapons.” It’s a bold move by a company so influential; however, it’s one that needed to be made.
This is the initiative we’re lacking in the U.S. They’re not insisting we get rid of everyone’s guns; they’re showing they care about people’s lives more than unnecessary military weapons. With the conversations being held about gun control today, it’s important for companies and persons of stature to show that their concern for mass shootings is greater than their ability to hold onto their military-style guns.
The issue with these military-style weapons are exactly what their name says: they’re meant for military use. They’re efficient in killing large numbers of people, with their lightweight bodies and precision accuracy. They were developed solely for use to kill other people. There’s no rational reason these guns are being sold for civilians to have around their homes.
Bank of America has in no way gone against the second amendment by making this choice. The company is still providing their financial services to other firearm retailers. Bank of America’s intentions clearly aren’t to infuriate their consumers, although some people are certainly enraged. They’re sending the message that these mass shootings, such as the shooting at the nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and the shooting at the school in Parkland, Florida, which were both performed with an AR-15 style rifle, shouldn’t be happening anymore.
Bank of America isn’t the only banking company to make changes. Citigroup has also taken action to address the firearm policy. In March, the company began requiring their clients in the gun industry stop selling to customers who are younger than the age of 21 or have not passed a background check. These small changes will influence the future. As more financial services are taken away, more firearm companies may consider changing their goods and selling what is for rational use, rather than what is novelty.
It doesn’t seem as though many laws surrounding these weapons will change soon. Companies will still sell military-style weapons and unfortunately, they may still be used in tragic circumstances. However, the second best thing companies can do is remove funding. If more companies follow suit, we may see a future without deadly mass shootings.
Chantelle Baker is a 21-year-old communication studies senior from Waipahu, Hawaii.