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: 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.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles













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