backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by 91TTZ.. on May 17 at 11:51 AM

It says the current gun debate has nothing to do with it

There's a lot of controversy surrounding the use of guns these days, and it's even starting to show in the retail sector as Square announces that gun retailers can't use its services. 

Square, the San Francisco-based mobile payment startup, has announced a change to its terms that says gun retailers cannot use its technology. The exact terms block sales of firearms, firearm hardware, ammunition and parts. It also forbids sales of weapons and "other devices designed to cause physical injury."

Square said its revised terms have nothing to do with the current gun debate.

“From time to time, we revisit our policies governing the use of Square to ensure they are in the best interests of our customers,” said a Square spokesman. 


Square isn't the first to snub guns. For instance, General Electric (GE) said it won't provide financing to gun retailers anymore. 

While many companies are looking to either take a stance on the gun debate or just be more sensitive about the topic in general, it seems odd that Square is choosing to block out guns. 

According to Southwick Associates, a research firm that studies the hunting and shooting industry, only about 30 percent of firearms are distributed to big retail chains like Wal-Mart while the other 70 percent are sent to smaller stores -- and Square aims to spread the use of its cash register-free mobile payment system in small stores like these. 

What do you think? Is Square's decision to axe gun retailers a good idea? 

Sources: Forbes, CNN Money



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Odd Choice
By Flunk on 5/15/2013 9:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't even own a gun but I think this seems unfair to small retailers. It's not as if this is going to limit access to guns in any way. It is just going to inconvenience small retailers and possibly lose them some sales. All this means is that big retailers (who have the clout to avoid this kind of thing) will make more sales.




RE: Odd Choice
By BSMonitor on 5/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Odd Choice
By CZroe on 5/15/2013 10:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
The "unfair" part is that larger retailers continue having an advantage over smaller retailers because they accept a payment method many smaller retailers no longer can.

Did you even think about the answers to your questions before posting that? The service obviously provides some benefit over "how" they did business before, so be honest with yourself and don't ask as if it's an equivalent option to what the big retailers accept. Most did not have the ability to accept credit payments before. Many who could accept them could only do it in a convoluted way (PayPal) or from a fixed terminal. Because many retailers don't have brick and mortar locations or frequently operate away from it (flea markets; gun shows), even the ones with a traditional machine are disadvantaged.


RE: Odd Choice
By invidious on 5/15/2013 10:38:05 AM , Rating: 4
Wow you are very dillusional. Try descriminating by race, gender, sexual orientation, political offiliation, age, religion or dissabilities and see how long that lasts. But I'm sure thats different in your mind because all of those things pass the arbatrary progressive definition of what we all need to be tollerant of.

Just look at your last statement about how the "gun guys" should suck it up. How much more arrogant and hypocritical can you be?


RE: Odd Choice
By Argon18 on 5/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Odd Choice
By Mint on 5/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Odd Choice
By Mathos on 5/15/2013 11:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it does indeed fall under unfair and discriminatory acts part of a lot of anti discrimination laws in business. It's like saying, sure you can use this device to sell marijuana in cali, porn, head shop goods, alcohol, tobacco, or anything else possibly harmful to people.

But you can't sell anything gun or remotely firearms related.... Companies don't have the right to do that, it'd be the same as abercrombie and fitch stores blocking a person from entering their stores, because they don't fit the type of customer they want.


RE: Odd Choice
By Donkey2008 on 5/15/2013 5:20:53 PM , Rating: 1
No, it's more like a payment processing company refusing to allow A&F to use their services because A&F caters to homosexuals, which the owners of the payment company find morally despicable.


RE: Odd Choice
By 91TTZ on 5/16/2013 4:17:35 PM , Rating: 1
The part you're overlooking is that guns are Constitutionally protected.


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 7:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
What's your point? Gun ownership is Constitutionally protected. The right to sell guns using any specific third-party transaction processing service is not.


RE: Odd Choice
By anactoraaron on 5/15/2013 4:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
Not saying you are wrong, I'm only saying I've heard both sides of this kind of argument before- only it was about birth control being covered by health insurance. There's nothing different about this argument. It's their company and they can run it however they want.

If someone doesn't like it, that's ok. There are other alternatives to square.


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/15/2013 7:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, it appears you are the delusional one.

quote:
Try descriminating by race, gender, sexual orientation, political offiliation, age, religion or dissabilities and see how long that lasts.


That applies to things like employment, not to servicing customers/end users. And even then, you can generally get away with it so long as you are not completely flagrant with your discrimination.

Note that private entities are in fact entitled to discriminate however they like. For instance, the Boy Scouts of America has had a very public "no gays" policy for decades. They also have a "no atheists" one. And they're well within their rights to do so, however misguided they may be.

quote:
Just look at your last statement about how the "gun guys" should suck it up. How much more arrogant and hypocritical can you be?


No, he's correct, assuming by "gun guys" he's referring to the group of (self-proclaimed) libertarians who get all up in arms over Second Amendment issues. They're the ones being arrogant and hypocritical by crying "unfair discrimination" and trying to argue that a privately operated company should not be free to choose the terms of their own acceptable-use-policy .

The company is a free entity, and under no obligation to be "fair". Any *real* libertarian understands this, and that as a consequence the company is entirely within its rights to refuse service to gun retailers.

You can't advocate freedom for all and then bitch and moan whenever someone uses that freedom to do something you disagree with. Or rather, you can, but you deserve to be called out on it if you do.


RE: Odd Choice
By Manch on 5/16/2013 6:58:58 AM , Rating: 1

A flower shop in Washington is getting dragged thru the courts bc she doesnt want to provide services for a gay wedding. They are saying she is discrimnating, she says she shouldnt have to go against her religious/moral code.

Square doesnt want to provide services to gun retailers. They are saying Square is dicriminating, Square says they shouldnt have to go against their policy.

Where's teh difference in these two scenarios?

Personally I believe Square and the flower shop should be free to follow their respective guidlines wether they are religious based or not.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone doesnt want my business, then fine. I'll take it to their competitors and they can go F themselves.

The Boy Scouts is a private organization, not a business, and that's why they can have the policy they do.

Your rant about Libertarians justs proves you are just as much a hypocrite as the poster you are defending.


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 8:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where's teh difference in these two scenarios?


There isn't one.

quote:
Personally I believe Square and the flower shop should be free to follow their respective guidlines wether they are religious based or not.


Yes, exactly.

quote:
A flower shop in Washington is getting dragged thru the courts bc she doesnt want to provide services for a gay wedding.


The thing is, pretty much anyone can drag anyone else to court. It doesn't prove that their claims have merit, in and of itself.

If there's a ruling made against the flower shop, that would be something. But until there is, it doesn't say anything either way.

For all we know the flower shop will win the case.


RE: Odd Choice
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2013 11:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The company is a free entity, and under no obligation to be "fair". Any *real* libertarian understands this, and that as a consequence the company is entirely within its rights to refuse service to gun retailers.


There's a divide amongst Libertarians that stems from different schools of thought. The original libertarians adhered what is now called "classic liberalism" (which has almost nothing to do with modern "liberalism") where they were for a relaxed government, less of a nanny state, and more personal freedom. Basically they're socially liberal,fiscally conservative, and don't impose their views on others. But lately you have hardcore, religious conservatives calling themselves "libertarians" and they don't share the same socially liberal point of view. They're really just corporatists who want a conservative religious society and unbridled capitalism.

Myself, I'm pretty socially liberal. I feel no need to control what other people do in their lives. It doesn't offend me if women get abortions or if gays marry. But I do not believe in affirmative action or nanny state type laws. To me that crosses a line where people want to actively push their liberalism on other people and shove ideas down other people's throats. To me, they're not any better than hardcore religious people who believe that there can only be one way to live- their way- and they're going to harass and push their religion on you every chance they get.


RE: Odd Choice
By zlandar on 5/15/2013 10:41:00 AM , Rating: 4
You work in the IRS?


RE: Odd Choice
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2013 10:56:32 AM , Rating: 4
>If I innovate a product I can dictate the terms of its use to anyone...

No you can't. State and Federal laws override anything the company wants to do. For instance, you couldn't sell a car and state that the car cannot be resold. Or you couldn't sell a car and tell the driver that it can only be driven certain places. Or you couldn't tell your buyers that they can only use that product in the support of a certain political party.

But this company is basically doing the same thing as the last example. You have a liberal San Francisco based company clearly taking a political stance on guns, telling customers that they can't use it for anything gun related. While companies may state that you can't use their products to break the law, dealers buying and selling guns is completely legal.


RE: Odd Choice
By anactoraaron on 5/15/2013 4:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, it's a liberal San Fran issue... but all of those conservatives who griped about birth control... what if guns are just against the religion of the people running the company (thou shall not kill)? Would that make it ok?

You conservatives and liberals humor me. I'm glad I'm neither.


RE: Odd Choice
By 91TTZ on 5/16/2013 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a conservative either. I'm an atheist who voted for Gary Johnson.


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/15/2013 8:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or you couldn't sell a car and tell the driver that it can only be driven certain places. Or you couldn't tell your buyers that they can only use that product in the support of a certain political party.


Yes you can, and yes you can.

Otherwise, how can Apple sell people a copy of OSX and tell them that they are only allowed to run it on a "genuine Mac"?


RE: Odd Choice
By Manch on 5/16/2013 8:50:11 AM , Rating: 2
You're a moron.


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 9:07:01 AM , Rating: 2
And apparently you think that if you walk into a car dealership with $50,000 then they're legally obligated to take your cash and give you a car, even if you tell them you're going to use it to defame the dealership, or mow down pedestrians, or do anything else they might severely disapprove of.

Businesses can 1) refuse to deal with any customer for any reason they choose, and 2) require customers to agree to abide by certain policies as a precondition of sale and refuse sale or services if the customer will not consent to the policy.

It's not rocket science.


RE: Odd Choice
By Manch on 5/16/2013 12:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
Your examples are all of things that would be illegal. Buying and selling guns are not.

No I don't think I can do as you suggest and nor did I say that. Your Mac example is idiotic, and you continue to split hairs.

Can a business refuse to deal with a customer because they are black? or because they are muslim, or jewish? No they cannot.

If you want to argue the point, then do just that. Don't make stupid statements and draw wild conclusions..moron.


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 7:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can a business refuse to deal with a customer because they are black? or because they are muslim, or jewish? No they cannot.


And you accuse me of using contrived examples? Race, gender, and religion are all recognized classes in anti-discrimination laws. But "small gun merchant" is definitely not. And in any case, anti-discrimination laws do not apply here.

So yes, a business can do exactly that. Have you seriously never seen a place with a "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign? Businesses have every right to choose who they deal with, and under what terms they will provide products and services.

You can't demand that a business take your money just because you want them to. Or you can, but they don't have to listen.

quote:
Your examples are all of things that would be illegal.


Um, no. You're just ignoring the ones that are inconvenient to you. Ebay has a long list of things that they will not let you sell on the platform, some of which are illegal but many of which are not. A trendy club will discriminate along gender, age, and potentially racial lines when deciding who to let in. A restaurant will turn away patrons who aren't dressy enough. And so on. All completely legal.

Besides which, it's not the business's job or responsibility to prevent people from doing illegal things with their purchases. They may choose to do so voluntarily, but they certainly aren't required to.


RE: Odd Choice
By Argon18 on 5/15/2013 11:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
So your terms of use could include forbidding gay affiliated groups from using it? How about banning all Jewish groups? Banning african american groups? Where do you draw the line? Owning a firearm is a civil right. One that's guaranteed by the Constitution. Actively preventing people from exercising their civil rights is deplorable.

And your "How were they doing business before?" argument is nonsense. You could say the same about any component of modern life. Ban asian people from driving cars, after all, how did they get around before cars were invented?


RE: Odd Choice
By Mint on 5/15/2013 11:30:44 AM , Rating: 1
This isn't about any affiliate groups. It's about a product or good.

Every store in the country is allowed to choose what it sells. Amazon can choose whether or not to sell kosher foods, religious ornaments, guns, etc. This is no different.

A payment system simply replaces cash transactions - not all, but a subset - with something more convenient. No rights are being infringed by not giving you that convenience for some goods.


RE: Odd Choice
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2013 1:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
But this isn't a good, it's a service. And I'm not sure that you can discriminate who you provide services to. This company is saying that you cannot use their payment system to give money to groups (stores who sell guns) that don't agree with their political slant.

Could they also say that the system can be used to donate money to Democratic politicians but not Republican politicians?


RE: Odd Choice
By FITCamaro on 5/15/2013 11:27:03 AM , Rating: 4
True but what you cannot do under current law is discriminate. A gun purchase is no different than any other purchase. This is nothing but Square discriminating against gun shops due to the companies owners disagreeing with people selling them.

They could easily be taken to court for it.


RE: Odd Choice
By shaaaaawn on 5/15/2013 1:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
Unless expressly prohibited, discrimination is legal. That's why we have discrimination laws, to exclude discrimination based on certain criteria (age, race, sexual orientation).

They aren't discriminating, they made a strategic business decision that I assure you is legal and common practice


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/15/2013 8:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
I love how the people who are always railing against the evils of "big government" and the "nanny state" are howling for the government to get involved and use anti-discrimination laws to punish a private company for trying to conduct its business the way it wants.

I guess people only get to have freedom if they use those freedoms to do things you approve of, eh? Hypocrite much?


RE: Odd Choice
By CZroe on 5/15/2013 10:22:30 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not a gun owner and I have no intention to buy a gun and yet, because of this, I will never use Square or patronize a business that does. PayPal and others have similar options.


RE: Odd Choice
By DanNeely on 5/15/2013 10:52:09 AM , Rating: 3
Paypal is equally hoplophobic.

"We don’t allow PayPal members to buy or sell any kind of firearm, whether it’s in working order or not. The same goes for certain firearm parts and ammunition."

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/helpcenter/article/...


RE: Odd Choice
By FITCamaro on 5/15/2013 11:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
And Paypal could equally be sued. If they want to offer a payment service, they can't go and say "you can't use that service to buy or sell products that we don't like".

Furthermore it can be easily bypassed with Paypal. I can easily sell a gun to someone and have them just gift me the cash through Paypal.


RE: Odd Choice
By Mint on 5/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/15/2013 9:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
So then why don't you sue them and see how that works out for you?

And it can be easily bypassed in either case. Just lie and tell the provider that you are selling something else.


RE: Odd Choice
By cmart on 5/15/2013 12:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I will not use Square as long as they continue this policy. In fact, any business that doesn't support basic American rights doesn't deserve my patronage.


RE: Odd Choice
By jeepga on 5/15/2013 9:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you cmart. Not doing business with them isn't hard. I also don't do business with PayPal, because of their position except when absolutely necessary. (And it's been a long, long time since I've had to use them.)

I think any non-governmental supported company that isn't in a monopoly position should make any decision they see fit. (And yes that includes things that currently violate certain laws.) However, we have the right to not do business with them and spread the word based on their positions.


RE: Odd Choice
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/15/2013 10:28:02 PM , Rating: 3
That's their right as business owners. If you found your own transaction processing company, you can run it however you want.


RE: Odd Choice
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 1:13:43 AM , Rating: 2
No you don't have a "right" to discrimination, even if it's "your" business.

I'm about as pro-business as anyone here. But come on, this move is indefensible.


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 3:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, they do have that right. Just like a fancy restaurant can choose to turn away anyone not wearing a jacket and tie, or a club can turn away anyone not trendy enough, or a daycare can turn away people who waltz in waving giant dildos around, businesses generally have the right to refuse service to whomever they want, for any reasons they choose.

This is no more (or less) indefensible than Apple telling people that they cannot run OS X on anything other than a "genuine Mac". Or Apple telling developers that they can't have porn in their apps. Or Apple telling iOS users that they can't have apps with porn in them. Or mobile carriers telling people that they cannot unlock or jailbreak their phones. Or eBay telling people that they can't sell certain things ( http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/items-ov.html ). Or Chick-fil-A declaring that they have a problem with gay people.

You can disagree with their position and their policy, but they have every right to have it.


RE: Odd Choice
By marvdmartian on 5/16/2013 7:46:16 AM , Rating: 2
No biggy. The NRA has 2 or 3 credit card processors that they recommend, who are gun friendly.

If Square wants to lose business, just so they can sleep better at night, let them enjoy their pyrrhic victory.


I'm Confused
By DaveLessnau on 5/15/2013 10:02:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It also forbids sales of weapons and "other devices designed to cause physical injury."


What about lead pipes? Fertilizer? Box cutters? Pressure cookers? Axes? Pocket knives? Kitchen knives? Pesticides? Etc....

I guess maybe they should have paid attention to
quote:
...the current gun debate.




RE: I'm Confused
By MaulBall789 on 5/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: I'm Confused
By jimbojimbo on 5/15/2013 10:46:00 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Guns have no other purpose but to inflict injury.
Yeah, on those who wish to inflict injury on me or my loved ones. What's the problem with that? I get shot or they get shot. I choose the latter. Somehow people are brainwashed into thinking that's wrong and that makes no sense.


RE: I'm Confused
By Bubbacub on 5/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2013 1:48:04 PM , Rating: 3
That's a great idealistic fantasy, but it's only a fantasy. You might as well say that the long term point is that a civilised country should need no laws because nobody needs or feels the need to commit a moral abuse.


RE: I'm Confused
By Bubbacub on 5/15/2013 6:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
It patently isnt a fantasy. I live in the UK. I've never seen a gun in my life. I've never felt unsafe, or felt that I need a gun to protect myself or my family.
I'm not saying that the UK is a crime free paradise - just that gun crime is essentially non existent here.


RE: I'm Confused
By Kyuu on 5/15/2013 6:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
I live in the US. I've seen plenty of guns in my life. I've never felt unsafe, or that the presence of guns makes myself or my family inherently unsafe.

Why do guns make people feel so unsafe? The possibility of being bludgeoned or stabbed to death (or the much more likely possibilities of dying in a car wreck or from an accident in your own home) doesn't merit worry but the possibility of being shot does?

Why does it matter if crime is "gun crime"? Is a violent crime less objectionable if it involves some other lethal weapon?

Oh, not to mention: if somebody really wanted to kill you with a gun, they could get one and do it, regardless of if whether guns are illegal or so heavily regulated as to be practically illegal in your country. Why does a gun in the hand of a police officer or member of your military or other government organization not make you feel unsafe? You feel like they are somehow specially qualified to be unable to use their firearms to harm or oppress you? If so, you really haven't studied history at all.


RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/16/2013 3:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think he's confusing guns with violence. I see baseball bats all the time at the park. People play baseball with them. Now if I saw someone walk up to me with a baseball bat in the inner city I'd be scared. It's all about context. Are they using the gun/bat for sport or are they about to kill someone with it?


RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/16/2013 3:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
I see guns all the time. Every time I go shooting I see guns. Gun crime is non-existent where I live also. I live in the suburbs of Pennsylvania.


RE: I'm Confused
By MaulBall789 on 5/15/2013 4:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't arguing the merits of those injuries caused by guns, whether providing protection or otherwise. Just that pressure cookers and the others were designed for s specific purpose other than causing injury. That fact remains, no matter how you characterize it.


RE: I'm Confused
By anactoraaron on 5/15/2013 4:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
So it's ok for the bad guy to swipe his stolen card to buy a gun to rob/kill you with?

I mean, just how many people look at your ID when running cards anymore? I remember when it was under $25 you didn't need to sign, but at target the other day I didn't need to sign for a $45 purchase...

Why not look at it from the standpoint of this company making it harder for the bad guys to get guns?


RE: I'm Confused
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 1:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, because the gun is sentient an knows who it's being pointed at. Please.

His point is entirely valid. A gun is designed to inflict harm upon whatever it happens to be pointed at. Some people will point the gun at legitimate things, and some people won't, but the gun itself doesn't care.

Contrast that to other things in the OP's list, and it's clear that his point is absurd. Yes all the things listed can be used to inflict harm. However, none of them are designed (or optimized) with the primary intent of inflicting harm.

A pressure cooker is designed to cook food, for crying out loud. If you seriously think pressure cookers should be treated the same as guns then you're as stupid as the people who wanted to charge the Boston bombers with using WMD's.


RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/16/2013 4:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His point is entirely valid. A gun is designed to inflict harm upon whatever it happens to be pointed at. Some people will point the gun at legitimate things, and some people won't, but the gun itself doesn't care.


You're trying to connect these two things to justify your assumption that a gun = illegal

However, guns are constitutionally protected and people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A person with a gun should NOT be assumed to be a criminal. They're assumed to be a law abiding citizen with a constitutionally protected gun.


RE: I'm Confused
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 7:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're trying to connect these two things to justify your assumption that a gun = illegal


No, I'm trying to point out the absurdity of jimbo's statement that guns only harm "those who wish to inflict injury on me or my loved ones".

Guns are legal; I've *never* said otherwise. But just because something is legal does not mean a business must support it or that they cannot have their own policy prohibiting it. Apple can ban porn (which is also completely legal), nightclubs can ban sandals, and Square can ban firearms sales.

The legality of guns is completely irrelevant to this discussion.


RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2013 11:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
I do see what you're saying, but I guess we'll have to see how this plays out in court. Aside from the gun issue, it seems that companies are trying to override people's rights when it comes to their privacy or freedom.

While it's illegal for the government to do this, can private companies? For instance, you have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure the US. But everything is owned. Can every private landowner have their own security forces that shake you down against your will when you walk past their property? That would effectively result in you only having freedom in your own house or on federal land.


RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2013 11:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
I have another good example for you:

Imagine if health insurance companies said that they don't want people they insure to smoke, or eat meat, or shoot guns. You might think that they have the right to say that, and if you don't like their terms of service you can just avoid them. But with Obamacare you *have* to have health insurance from a private company as there's no public option.

If all the health insurance companies had this requirement you'd get a situation where you have a legal right to do x but you also have a legal obligation to get insurance which means you can't do x.


RE: I'm Confused
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2013 11:03:42 AM , Rating: 5
Guns are perfectly legal in the US and gun ownership is protected by the Constitution. In fact, gun ownership is more protected than owning a car.

It does not matter what your personal view on gun ownership is. You're being logically inconsistent and intellectually dishonest in this debate.

Some "liberals" (they're not really liberal at all) want members of society to respect laws and the rights of fellow citizens, as long as those laws agree with their personal political views. If not, then they want those laws to be ignored and those people to be oppressed.


RE: I'm Confused
By bobcpg on 5/15/2013 11:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Guns have no other purpose but to inflict injury.


That is odd. Seems the Olympic games have many events with guns, yet no one get injured.

Now luge - that's a killer event!

Come back down to earth than join the rest of us.


RE: I'm Confused
By Omega215D on 5/15/2013 3:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
You are a moron because guns have a recreational purpose as well. People like to go out to the range and shoot stuff, target practice and even compete on an INTERNATIONAL level, meaning plenty of people outside the US love to shoot guns and other types of weapons.

Then there's hunting which in certain places means being able to eat.


RE: I'm Confused
By M'n'M on 5/15/2013 10:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confused as well. It's when guns are misused that innocent people get hurt. The whole "designed to cause physical injury" is BS. I'm not surprised that Square will allow their device to be used sell alcohol, which when misused kills more Americans than guns in any given year. Hypocrisy runs deep in the species.

ps - What's Square's policy re: 20oz sugary drinks ? Perhaps they need to chat with Mayor Bloomberg. After all they do say :

quote:
“From time to time, we revisit our policies governing the use of Square to ensure they are in the best interests of our customers "


Freedom of choice is obviously not something Square believes is necessarily in the customer's "best interests".


RE: mobile transactions
By wallijonn on 5/15/2013 12:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Who is more likely to use such technology? Probably gun shows. Square therefore has taken a political stance. Regular gun shops probably have land line transactions, so they wouldn't need mobile transaction systems. The FFL gun dealers probably will just not use this company for their transactions. Sqaure will therefore lose market share amongst firearm owners, sellers and dealers.

It just means that most gun show transactions will have to be done in cash, since charging anything on a mobile transaction device, which isn't tied to an actual gun store, will likely raise a flag at the bank and will get summarily rejected. Charge a firearm to 'Joe's Garage'? Not likely to go through. At least not if your CC company is being diligent in preventing CC fraud.

There are always ATMs at gun shows. The problems are that one can reach their withdrawal limit or the ATM runs out of cash or the ATM wireless phone lines goes down. The solution is easy - carry enough cash, or leave the show and go to a bank (Saturday).

Gun shows do have their own set of problems - namely no back ground checks for ammo, or private sales which only need state drivers licenses to be legal, outside of the show private sales, underage attendees, etc. (Criminals have driver's licenses, too.) The solutions are easy enough but will likely still be contested by the citizenry.




RE: mobile transactions
By kmmatney on 5/15/2013 1:14:00 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah - seems like this is mostly about gun shows (and personal sales) to me. It's is a bit scary that a CNN reporter was able to go to several gun shows and buy semi-automatic assault rifles, without even showing an ID in most cases:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/tonight-on-a...

All gun laws seem like a joke, when you can just go to a show and buy whatever you want without a background check...


RE: mobile transactions
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2013 1:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's is a bit scary that a CNN reporter was able to go to several gun shows and buy semi-automatic assault rifles, without even showing an ID in most cases:


Why is that scary? US citizens have a legal right to own guns. If you own a gun and you wanted to sell it to me, you could. You don't need to do any paperwork. Guns are a right like free speech. They are not a privilege like cars.


RE: mobile transactions
By anactoraaron on 5/15/2013 4:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's scary because the 'bad guys' can easily get guns. People with felonies can easily get guns. People who would shoot kids can easily get guns. Hell terrorists can easily get guns... get the point?

Not ALL citizens have a legal right to own a gun. There should be paperwork and a background check. It's not fair to me if I sell you a gun and (unknown to me) you have a felony and shoot up a school and kill kids.

Responsible gun owners understand this argument.


GE
By ForceCredit on 5/15/2013 9:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
I find it humorous that GE has decided that it's above lending to firearm retailers when they're the major designer and manufacturer of miniguns.




RE: GE
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2013 11:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
"Do as I say, not as I do"

When a GE weapon kills a person it's ok, because GE made money off it. You can chalk it up as a profitable transaction.


RE: GE
By Solandri on 5/15/2013 2:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well obviously they don't want to help their competitors. ;)


There was a better way to do this
By mcnabney on 5/15/2013 9:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
Square should have simply stated that no controlled or illegal equipment can be purchased through their portal. That would include obvious things like illegal drugs and prostitution, but also prohibit prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. Those items all require licensing and an address. It can be framed as wanting to distance their business from situations that would unnecessarily complicate their system.

Full disclosure, my wife uses Square as a payment option for legal services.




RE: There was a better way to do this
By HrilL on 5/15/2013 2:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure their terms of service says something along those lines but who is to know what anyone is selling. You can say you sold anything and they won't know the difference. Drug Dealers and Prostitutes probably use these all the time with nothing to worry about.


How do they know?
By quiksilvr on 5/15/2013 9:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
I can go on Google Play, get the free app, register online and get a free card reader sent to me. I don't have to say what type of retailer I am or what the purchase is even for.

...So how do they know what I'm paying for?




RE: How do they know?
By cmart on 5/15/2013 12:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to download the app, take their free device, and smash it with a hammer. And I call on all second amendment supporters to do the same.


Just dumb business
By Ammohunt on 5/15/2013 10:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
This is what happens when hippies start their own business. I wonder if I could pay for an abortion or a sex change with one of their systems? Simple remedy, I will choose not to use their systems for any of my transactions and I will let retailers know that their systems are not an acceptable means to deal with my money.

On a side note its funny how the left can discriminate all they want yet when others discriminate its a crime...whats next denying junk food purchases?




RE: Just dumb business
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2013 11:12:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On a side note its funny how the left can discriminate all they want yet when others discriminate its a crime.


That's the activist mentality- they scream for openness, transparency, fairness, and equality... as long as it agrees with their agenda. If it doesn't, you might as well oppress those people and silence them at all costs.

What is especially toxic about the activist mentality is that even activists for other causes will get angry if you ignore the activists. By ignoring certain activism, they feel that you're ignoring their activism as well. The end result is an extremist society.


Late to the show, but...
By euclidean on 5/17/2013 9:00:33 AM , Rating: 3
Reading through some of the comments and the article, it fails to touch on the concept of liability.

Both sides in the comments have valid (and invalid :P) points, but the real question was never asked or answered: Why did Square make this change in policy? The article points to a clause in their Terms of Service, but did anyone ever think about the laws and liabilities around providing financial support to gun sales.

With everything going on with the US Gov't - would you want to be involved as the company supplying transaction support to gun sales that may or may not be legal, depending on what state the sale occurred in?




Big Picture
By Crazyeyeskillah on 5/15/2013 9:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's kinda silly that these types of services try to block certain sectors like firearms from being affiliated with their operations. Virtually every American who is paying taxes has a portion of that money go towards buying military weapons to help throttle unwanted adversaries both domestic and abroad.

They don't mind people burying themselves in debt with credit cards that can be pulled out and used anywhere but someone trying to use their system for legal gun sales (ie trade show) are forbidden...

I'm not familiar with how square works but how would someone know that it is being used for a gun purchase if they just don't disclose that?

Kill em all, good day sirs.




and the world is flat
By Fidget on 5/15/2013 10:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
"Square said its revised terms have nothing to do with the current gun debate"

I call bullshit




They can do that if they wish but...
By MZperX on 5/15/2013 12:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
... the consumers can also decide not to ever use their service (like I just did). Betting against the 2nd Amendment and firearms in general has been a losing bet for a long time, at least the last two decades in fact. And it will continue to be a losing proposition because people have awakened to the true meaning of the 2ndA and that genie cannot be stuffed back in the lamp.

So, this company wants to cut off a large portion of the population from their potential user base? They can go ahead and knock themselves out. It's their loss.




Disrupt
By shaaaaawn on 5/15/2013 1:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Disruptive companies do disruptive things and this is no different. There's plenty of other options for small retailers out there. Square is handing their competitors that business on a silver platter. Good for them. Be above the competition




Probably a minority
By Newspapercrane on 5/15/2013 1:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
The gun stores using this technology are probably in a Minority of those.

That being said... I swear... the last time I purchased a firearm (Ruger 10/22)... I paid for it via Square.




Boycott
By HostileEffect on 5/15/2013 2:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like I don't need square's services and they can join the ranks of WholeFoods, among others that will never see my money.




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki