There is a direct correlation between the amount of guns in this country and the amount of mass shootings we've had – the evidence is apparent and can't be argued with.

According to a New York Times article, "Americans make up about 4.4% of the global population but own 42% of the world's guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31% of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama. Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people – a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world's second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States."

Gun advocates point the finger and say we should focus on mental health, and everything else besides gun laws. However, access means more gun violence as the statistics indicate above. While the solution to gun violence is multi-pronged and extremely complicated, it should start with stricter gun laws. We must act to change gun laws in this country to make guns less accessible to everyone – not just people with mental health issues and criminal backgrounds. As we saw in the Las Vegas shooting, people wanting to commit mass murder don't always have a criminal background. Guns are designed to kill, so their availability should be extremely limited, and anyone who has the power to own one should undergo a long background investigation process.

Credit unions, banks and credit union members aren't immune to gun violence, and neither am I. For me, this issue is personal. While working at a bank, I was robbed by an extremely intoxicated drug addict wielding a gun, who demanded on a ransom note for me to "give me all your muney." You read that right, "money" wasn't even spelled correctly. And smelling the alcohol on his breath made me even more concerned about his intelligence and decision-making skills, and whether I was going to get out of there alive.

The FBI later informed my co-workers and me that the robber committed suicide. I was left wondering, did he purchase the gun legally? Would anything have been different if we had stricter gun laws in this country? Perhaps something in a background check would have raised a red flag, preventing him from buying a gun and thus saving me the trauma of being robbed. I made it out of there alive, but so many people in this country aren't as fortunate.

Just a few years prior to being robbed, one of my family members was shot and killed by a stalker. To my knowledge, the killer had a previous criminal record of stalking women. Again, I've always wondered, would the outcome have been different if the gun laws in this county were stricter? I'll never know. However, what I do know is that we have the power to change things moving forward. By "we," I mean credit unions and the members they serve.

Credit unions are stewards of their communities, and are deeply connected and ingrained in the communities they serve. Inevitably, gun violence will end up impacting someone who works at a credit union or a credit union member, but credit unions have the ability to change this through advocacy for stricter gun laws.

The power of credit union advocacy was demonstrated recently when S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, passed in the Senate with wide bipartisan support. It also had the backing of the CUNA/League system, according to the CUNA website. It passed partially due to a huge advocacy effort by credit unions and credit union organizations. This demonstrates change is possible through advocacy. The bill still has to pass the House, but chances are good that it will.

However, credit unions don't have to advocate policy change through Congress to make a difference. Just because Congress hasn't been able to act on stricter gun legislation doesn't mean credit unions and the members they serve can't.

Credit unions can create internal policies to affect change as well, like Citigroup Inc. did recently when it changed its policies to restrict some gun sales by business customers. Citigroup issued a memo stating the following: "Under this new policy, we will require new retail sector clients or partners to adhere to these best practices: (1) they don't sell firearms to someone who hasn't passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don't sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines. This policy will apply across the firm, including to small business, commercial and institutional clients, as well as credit card partners, whether co-brand or private label. It doesn't impact the ability of consumers to use their Citi cards at merchants of their choice."

You'll rarely hear me say we should follow a bank's lead, but here, we should. Let's be the change we want to see in the world. After all, our children are counting on us.

Tahira Hayes

Tahira Hayes is a correspondent-at-large for CU Times. She can be reached at [email protected].