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

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.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles













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