In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the festering wound that is the gun debate in America has flapped open on to the national scene yet again. This newest iteration of the debate has been highly political and left many demanding governmental reform to instigate at least some semblance of gun reform.

And why shouldn’t they petition the government? Government is a natural development in the history of social man that allows us to, among other things, set rules and enforce those rules. Democratic government is the amalgamation of society and the conduit through which society most often takes actions to solve its ills.

Businesses have also recently attempted to solve the school-shooting problem in America. Whether motivated by gaining positive PR, which they hope will ultimately translate into higher sales, or by the pure goodness of their hearts, businesses are self-imposing restrictions on their gun sales.

Dick’s Sporting Goods has said it will stop selling assault-style rifles, firearms to buyers under 21, high-capacity magazines and will continue to not sell bump stocks. Dick’s had sold a shotgun to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooter, although he did not use it in his massacre. Walmart also announced that it would raise the age for buying firearms and ammunition from its stores to 21. Walmart had already stopped selling AR-15’s and other similar weapons in 2015. It also does not sell bump stocks of high-capacity magazines and only sells handguns in Alaska.

Businesses have also been taking pro-gun reform steps in other ways. Most have done this by severing ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and taking away benefits these companies offered to rank-and-file NRA members. Examples of companies that have done this are Avis, Hertz, United Airlines, Delta and, the company that began the waterfall of privilege revocation, the First National Bank of Omaha. The NRA responded to these moves by reframing them as unpatriotic blows to American freedoms.

“The loss of a discount,” said the NRA, “will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.”

The argument in this piece is not that it is impossible for government to solve the ills of our societies, or that making the world better by using government is not worth trying. The point is to demonstrate that non-governmental entities, like companies, can and do act in domestic societies for the betterment of them. Whether they are motivated by morality, the bottom line, or both, in our integrated and globalized world, companies can help us to solve problems.

Government was able to address some things in regards to gun reform. The federal government might still be fumbling around with gun regulations, which will probably not pass this congress or be signed by this president, but the state level had some success for the pro-regulation crowd. Florida, which has some of the nation’s most relaxed gun laws, passed a bill in to law that regulates guns to a degree. This bill raised the age limit for all gun sales in Florida to 21, it creates a three-day waiting period or for as long as a background check takes, outlaws bump stocks, funds more school security, expands mental health services, and allows non-classroom staff to be trained and to carry firearms in the school.

Although the Parkland high school students are yet to get all of their gun-regulation wish list checked off, they have accomplished something. Some of that success has stemmed from the actions of business. Maybe they can find more success leveraging businesses than they have with the government that is meant to protect them.