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

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?

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki