BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Dick Moves?
DICK MOVES?
By Kayla Jimenez
I
n recent years, companies have become more and more political, as has everything in society. Unsatisfied with how the government and politicians handle political matters, Americans have turned to businesses, public figures, celebrities, and the internet to find political information and take political action. Following the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, many Americans demanded the government take action and reform gun policy. After both the federal and state governments failed to make major headway, American companies stepped up to the plate. Following suggestions that the Trump administration work to increase the legal gun purchasing age, both Walmart Inc. and Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. decided that they would no longer sell guns to anyone under the age of 21. According to the New York Times, these companies are “two of the nation’s leading gun sellers.” These companies took initiative to tighten their own policies following the Florida tragedy. Part of the policy change includes no longer selling “assault-style” rifles at Dick’s Field & Stream chain (Walmart stopped selling assault-style rifles back in 2015). Currently, it is lawful for licensed gun retailers to sell handguns to those 21 and older and sell rifles to those 18 and older. Now, both Dick’s and Walmart will only sell weapons to those 21 and older, superseding U.S. law. Dick’s had a personal connection to the incident: the accused Florida shooter had purchased a shotgun through Dick’s prior to the shooting. Additionally, another accused potential school shooter had purchased his weapon at Dick’s during the planning process before being arrested. Dick’s will continue to sell rifles and shotguns, only to those 21 and older, and will no longer sell high-capacity magazines at any of its retail outlets. Walmart went so far as to stop selling toys resembling assault-style rifles, such as toy guns and air guns. Both companies openly announced that their actions were in direct response to the Florida tragedy. A handful of other companies have expressed their stances on gun control through different means and measures. Several companies have severed ties with the NRA. The Wall Street Journal reported that “both Delta Air Lines and United Airlines… ended their discount travel programs with the organization. The airlines also asked the NRA to remove their information from its website.” In response to social media outrage and seemingly widespread resent of the NRA, companies felt the need to take action and show their support for these movements at a time when the government fails to do so. Social media users demand these companies do something through tweets, posts, and hashtags because they don’t see their interests reflected in the actions (or lack thereof) of the federal and the state governments. When people call out to companies in such a manner, companies usually respond and address their concerns faster than the government does. I was unsure what to expect following these varied actions taken by corporate America in the wake of the shooting. I expected both outrage and support. Yet social media response to
editor@binghamtonreview.com
both Dick’s and Walmart’s decisions has been overwhelmingly positive. The New York Times disclosed that about 79% of tweets responding to Dick’s announcement are positive. The other 21% call for boycotts of the companies, including one Dick’s employee resigning from the company. Dick’s stock price jumped slightly following the announcement, reflecting even Wall Street’s and investors’ support of the decision. The issue with the government regulating guns is primarily the violation of the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the source of our most basic protections and freedoms. The idea of altering the Bill of Rights in any way makes conservative people uncomfortable, and justifiably so. The United States operates under a common law system, meaning that our laws are based on precedent. This applies here because once one amendment is violated, challenged, or altered in any way, that paves the way for other amendments to be similarly violated and altered. In order to preserve our freedoms given to us by the Bill of Rights, none of these freedoms can be violated, simply because of how the law functions. Although it seems odd that Dick’s and Walmart are the ones taking political action, private companies are the best source of gun control in the United States. The government is in a tricky situation when it comes to gun control, not because of the NRA or other political actors, but because of the Second Amendment. Sure the NRA complicates things, but the real reason for the difficulty and confusion surrounding gun regulation is its status as an American right. Dick’s and Walmart do not have this issue; they do not have their hands tied the way the government does. Non-public institutions are not held accountable to the Bill of Rights, and can act freely on such matters (or as freely as they can under other governing laws). It makes people uncomfortable when corporations and businesses take political action because they expect that action to come from the government. But when the government fails, or the government simply cannot act on certain fronts, businesses fill that void and provide people with the things they want and believe they need. Though some people feel that it is inappropriate for businesses to do such things, at the end of the day, that is the right of the business. I support these companies’ decisions to take action because it is better than doing nothing. I don’t think it is appropriate for the federal government to keep reforming and changing gun control policies. Nothing seems to be a solution. If companies continue to take action and respond to Americans better than the government can, so be it! Who knows if Dick’s and Walmart selling less guns will make a difference? Who’s to say if regulation changes will decrease the impact of gun violence across the country? We simply have to do what we can and keep trying to find solutions. Can people still buy guns, both legally and illegally? Sure! But we can at least wait and see if these companies’ decisions have an impact. People should be more comfortable with private companies taking action because, at the end of the day, we do not have to answer to these businesses; they only exist if we give them our business.
BINGHAMTON REVIEW
5