Front Burner - Could suing over ‘smart guns’ curb Canadian gun violence?

Episode Date: December 20, 2019

In July 2018, a man went on a shooting rampage in downtown Toronto, killing two people and wounding 13 others. Now, a class-action lawsuit has been launched to sue gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson, alleging the company did not follow through on an earlier U.S. agreement to equip its handguns with smart gun technology that would restrict who can use the weapon. Today on Front Burner, we hear from one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs and get a crash course in smart guns.

This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Marianne Wernicke, sitting in for Jamie Poisson. The mass shooting in Toronto's Danforth neighbourhood shocked the country. It was July 2018. A man opened fire, killing 18-year-old Rhys Fallon and 10-year-old Juliana Kozis. He also injured 13 others before turning the gun on himself. I saw more victims on the ground and people pumping on their chest and it was traumatizing. It just seemed very surreal, almost like it wasn't really happening. Hard to believe it was real.

Now the victims and their families are launching a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson. That's the company that made the gun used in that attack. They say that company was negligent for not designing the gun with a special lock. It's been dubbed smart gun technology. And today, we're speaking with a man whose daughter was shot and a gun expert about what this case could mean for the development of that technology and for gun control in Canada. This is FrontBurner. Ken Price's daughter, Samantha, was hit point-bl blank in the hip during the Danforth shooting.

They're both plaintiffs in the Smith and Wesson lawsuit. Ken, thanks so much for being here. Thank you to FrontBurner for the opportunity. And I want to start with how your life and the life of your daughter has really changed since this attack. Samantha, as we mentioned, suffered a serious injury and the death of her friend, Reese Fallon, one of the two people who was killed by the same shooter. So I want to ask first, you know, how is your daughter doing with all of this? Well, thank you. Well, first of all, I'm going to say I'm proud of where Samantha is a year and a half, basically, after it's happened.

You know, I think, first of all, it was very shocking. And the first thing that happens is that it brings you directly into, you know, into this discussion. I would say that, you know, that night represents a lot to us. We were enjoying a summer evening and, you know, very trusting of the city and where Samantha was and, you know, waiting for her to sort of tell us that she was headed home. She had told us she was going to the Danforth that night, and instead we get a call at 10 o'clock from a stranger using my daughter's phone to say that my daughter's been shot.

So that was pretty much exactly the opposite of what we thought would be happening that night for sure, and it really changed everything in terms of the loss that you noted, the injury that she suffered, and then also, you know, now living with this, which I know that we had heard other victims talk about that. And, you know, when you're a consumer of these stories, you kind of go, that's interesting. I mean, what is the recovery process? So the first thing I would say is it's, the recovery process is really,

you live with it, as opposed to you get over it. And that's where I think we're at. And when you say, and I've heard you say this before, that your daughter and your whole family, in fact, will never be the same. Can you describe what that's like? For Samantha, particularly, not being quite as trusting you know about being out by herself or you know walking even in our neighborhood as she once was she'll have friends up the street and it'll be after eight o'clock and a little dark out and just say I can't walk there you know I can somebody walk with me or you know asking for rides when she didn't and not using the subway system the way that she did, particularly along the Bloor-Danforth line.

I mean, she went to school every day. She rode the subway twice a day every day because the high school she went to was a subway ride away. And to be honest with you, even sometimes there's remarks that I've heard her make that said, you know, I just feel randomly like I could be driving along in a car and somebody might, you know, shoot me. It's a $150 million proposed class action suit. Six plaintiffs allege Smith and Wesson was negligent because the company failed to incorporate smart gun technology. That's a safety measure that prevents unauthorized users from firing. According to the proposed lawsuit, Smith and Wesson agreed to incorporate smart technology in the early 2000s but didn't follow through.

I want to ask you now about the class action lawsuit. How does the lawsuit that you're bringing against Smith & Wesson respond to what your daughter and your family have been going through? Well, it's a good question, and it's the gun manufacturer rather than, say, other parties. And I think it's to shift the conversation to the what caused the harm in addition to the who. Like a lot of discussion around, you know, gun policy is around who should have guns and what kind of guns those people should have.

But they don't really, there really hasn't been a lot of focus on what, you know, the weapons themselves and what their capabilities are and could have been, you know, that would have been safer. And we believe that there were, there are and were technologies available and they could have done things differently and they didn't. And that's the premise of the lawsuit that you're bringing forward. And that's the premise of the lawsuit, exactly. You know, and I think it's not, you know, we don't think it's frivolous in any way. It's not, you know, we don't think it's frivolous in any way. We think, and we also think the courts are a way to resolve some of these issues of policy around guns. And we think it's appropriate in this case because we feel like we have a very, in our experience, a very real example,

but one that's not necessarily unique, and we suspect that others may come forward. Who knows? But I think we're going to act based on our experience and the tragedy that was caused on the Danforth. And what does a win or closure or justice, if you can project yourself forward, what would that look like for you and any other victims involved? Right. And survivors? Yeah. I think that's a good question because it's a big, long,

like there's a number of components, I think, that have to be addressed. But I would say in this case, it would be that smart gun technology gets implemented as a mandatory design element for handguns especially. But I kind of believe, and maybe I'm going to color outside the lines a little bit from the group, but I would say I don't see why this isn't part of the future design of all guns. So there's the first piece. And then I think the second piece is that we're still going to advocate for ownership, you know, law changes.

Because, you know, we believe that certain classes of weapons and handguns included, you know, law changes. Because, you know, we believe that certain classes of weapons and handguns included, you know, if we had our way, we would just have said, you know, the handguns should not be in the hands of private owners. But, you know, you should, you could go to a range, the ownership should be at the range, and they should be tightly and heavily monitored. And you can, you know, experience gun shooting there. You don't need to have guns in your home in order to accomplish that experience. And so that would be, if you're asking me what I would like to see in the future, those are the two things. And then certainly a cap on the fire power and capability of weapons. So again, that's not a model that says all guns should go away. That's not what anybody in our group has ever said.

And there just should be the most dangerous and the most concealed are the ones that shouldn't be out there in wide circulation. Thank you so much for sharing your personal experiences. I know it's difficult to talk about what happened here, but we appreciate you talking to us about it and about what this lawsuit means to you. Thank you. I appreciate the time. Ken Price's daughter, Samantha, was a victim and survivor of the Toronto Danforth mass shooting. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections.

So what exactly is this smart gun technology? And could it help reduce gun violence here in Canada? AJ Somerset is a former Canadian reservist and the author of Arms, the Culture and Credo of the Gun. Hi AJ, thank you so much for being here. No problem. I want to just start by just talking about what exactly a smart gun is. Like, can we do kind of a smart gun 101 about how this technology actually works? Well, the whole idea of a smart gun is this idea that somehow we can use technology to create a gun that can only be operated by its legitimate owner. What would that look like? Things like fingerprint, palm print, stuff that you'd use on your smartphone? Yeah, there's a couple of ideas. One of them is to have something like a fingerprint sensor, which has its problems in that, you know, if you use that on your phone, you know that it doesn't always unlock. And then another idea is to have something like a wearable RFID chip that the gun senses.

So you have a ring or a bracelet or something like that that you're wearing that indicates you're the proper user of that gun. The IP1 requires the watch to be present in order to fire. If the watch is absent, the gun does not fire. In contrast, if you have the watch on your wrist... We did get in touch with Smith and Wesson and asked for their response to this lawsuit. They did send us an email back saying that the company does not comment on pending litigation. The folks who are bringing this lawsuit forward believe that this technology would have likely had an impact on what happened. You know, the firearm that was used in the Danforth shooting was a semi-automatic handgun stolen during a break and enter in Saskatoon. We know that now. And the statement of claim says, I just want to read a little bit for you here.

Quote, the handgun was negligently designed and manufactured in that Smith and Wesson failed to incorporate authorized user or smart gun technology into the weapon. So they clearly think that it might have even stopped it. Do you think smart gun technology could have prevented the Danforth shootings? Well, I think that, you know, one of the problems with that particular claim is that it was stolen from a gun shop. So if it's stolen from the gun shop, then, you know, how does the first user activate the gun? There's got to be a way for the first ever user to activate the gun. So you're actually stealing that unused gun and you should be able to then activate it somehow. So it's not really clear that smart gun technology could necessarily prevent a gun that's stolen from a gun shop from being used by the person who stole it.

In 2000, when Smith & Wesson signed that agreement with the U.S. government saying they would start incorporating smart technology in all the new designs of their guns by 2003, they also made a pledge to invest in developing that technology. They also made a pledge to invest in developing that technology. Doesn't appear the company has followed through with that promise to incorporate the technology. Why do you think that is? The reason for them not following through is that as soon as they made this agreement, they suffered a backlash. The NRA organized a boycott against them. They quickly issued bulletins.

It would appear this particular gun maker is willing to sacrifice the rights of gun owners. Press releases. This is a futile act of craven self-interest, jeopardizing an entire U.S. industry. Which seems to have been quite effective, and that boycott persisted until the company changed hands, and then they could be forgiven. The problem in the United States is that you have a gun culture which is vehemently opposed to any control measure to the extent that a company like Smith & Wesson agreeing to cooperate in developing this technology are seen as traitors to gun owners. And these guys have long memories memories and they don't forgive.

So, you know, Smith & Wesson is essentially entering into a suicide pact by agreeing to develop this technology. And that's, you know, probably the reason that they abandoned it. And that's interesting too, because the victims who are coming forward here are citing a survey that was taken and published in a prominent health journal saying that 60% of those surveyed, including a majority of political conservatives and handgun owners, actually favored improved gun safety and designs that incorporated things like smart gun technology. How do you reconcile those two? Yeah, one of the prominent features of the gun culture in both the United States and Canada is that you have a relatively small number of people who have very hardcore views, and those are the people who are heard. And then when you look

at the overall views of gun owners as a whole, they're much less hardcore. So if you were to survey people and find that there's perhaps a majority of gun owners are interested in improved safety features and would accept smart gun technology if it worked and was reliable and so on, that would be kind of expected. The problem is that the people who are really in control of the discourse are the people who will not accept any move to restrict what they see as their rights in any way. And those people being in control of the discourse would be? Well, it's not even the NRA in the United States.

I mean, it's a sort of a loose movement even. So there was an example of the NRA. They criticized Open Carry Texas, these people who were running around showing up in restaurants with AR-15s, asserting their right to openly carry a firearm. The NRA criticized these people. The NRA's lobby group published an online letter saying these protesters are crossing the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness. It's not only rare, but it's starting to look downright weird and downright scary. And then within, you know, a week, they uncriticized them because they suffered a backlash. And that backlash came from this community of hardcore gun people. So the NRA has sort of helped to create

this culture, but they don't control it anymore. It's this beast that's running loose, and nobody really is in control of it. And you've kind of touched on this a little bit, but how big a factor do you think that unleashed beast, as you describe it, is having and holding back the research and development of this technology like smart guns? I think it's really important. I think that they see things like smart guns as being, you know, the thin edge of a wedge. And, you know, the more paranoid people will say, oh, well, if they bring in this technology, they'll be able to remotely deactivate your gun

and stuff like this. So those people are really vocal and they get heard. And so they are quite important in holding back the development. If we were to go forward and try to project into a hypothetical future where these forces didn't exist and they did develop the technology and they developed a technology that was effective and got around some of the problems that you listed earlier. What impact do you think that technology could have on gun crime? Let's talk specifically about Canada since we're here in Canada. Well, I think that it could, I mean, if we make a number of assumptions, we'll assume

that the technology is effective and we'll assume that it can't easily be disabled by anybody who knows how to take a gun apart sort of assumptions. We'll assume that the technology is effective and we'll assume that it can't easily be disabled by anybody who knows how to take a gun apart sort of thing. So, you know, if we make those assumptions, then it would help to reduce certainly crime with stolen handguns. Now, when I say reduce, the problem would be that crime is not all the same. There is, you know, people who, you know, rob gas stations with a handgun. Those kinds of people are bottom feeders and they would not be able to get around the technology. But when a gun moves into a gang supply chain, then we're dealing with a sophisticated organization. The individual gang members may

not be sophisticated, but the organization as a whole is, and they find ways to get the expertise they need to do the things they need to do. So likely they would find ways around it, you know, find people who could hack it and so on. So it wouldn't necessarily reduce that. And then there's another factor, which I think really deserves to be considered. The majority of mass shootings in this country and in the United States are committed by lawful gun owners using guns they own legally. And smart gun technology will do nothing to solve that problem. That's a much more difficult problem.

We're talking today because of this class action lawsuit that's being brought forward against Smith & Wesson in Canada. We hear so much about the number of mass shootings in the United States. So why haven't we heard about these kinds of lawsuits there before? Because they have that shield law in place. So, you know, that shield law for firearms manufacturers was created during the Bush era. So it was created under a gun-friendly government. ...which would prohibit civil lawsuits against gun makers and dealers in the event of firearm misuse. Congress must begin to stem the slide down this slippery slope to prevent a few states from bankrupting the national firearms industry

and denying all Americans their fundamental right to bear arms. And, you know, it was created, depending on who you ask, it was either created because the anti-gun people were using frivolous lawsuits to attack gun owners, or sorry, gun manufacturers in a sort of disingenuous way, Or alternatively, it was created because gun manufacturers were really afraid of these lawsuits, which many of them were genuine and meritorious lawsuits. So it depends who you ask. But it was created essentially because the gun manufacturers were afraid at least of the hit to their bottom line that these lawsuits were going to bring.

I remember looking back at that time, George Bush and his administration saying this was an economic decision, that they were trying to protect an industry that could be bankrupt by these kinds of cases. Yeah, the accusation was that the anti-gun people were trying to bankrupt gun owners through the courts, or sorry, gun manufacturers through the courts, just by bringing strings of frivolous lawsuits. Can you sum up where you see the Danforth case going, this lawsuit, and how it might end up? might end up? It's difficult to say. You know, when we look at any kind of lawsuit or criminal case or something, and we look at what we read in the news, we have fractions of all the details that are there. So, you know, I really hate to start gazing into my crystal ball with something like this and making predictions. I think that, you know, on the face of it, the question is really, was Smith and Wesson negligent in failing to follow through

with this agreement? And I think that Smith and Wesson's counter argument would be this product would be unmarketable. There's resistance in the market to development of this product. Uh, we're not obliged to enter into a commercial suicide pact with the government. And there were massive technical problems with implementing it that we would not have been able to implement it in a way that would have worked. And that's probably a pretty good defense for Smith and Wesson, but it really comes down to who seems the best when they actually put those arguments in front of the court.

Lots to digest and think about as we follow this case through. Thank you so much. Right. Thank you. That's all the time we have for today. Front Furner comes to you from CBC News and CBC Podcasts. The show is produced by Mark Apollonio, Elaine Chao, Shannon Higgins, Ashley Mack, and Imogen Burchard. Our sound designer is Derek Vanderwyk. Our music is by Joseph Chavison from Boombox Sound. The executive producer of Front Burner is Nick McCabe-Locus. I'm Marianne Warnicka, in for Jamie Poisson.

She'll be back on Monday. Have a great weekend. Thanks for listening. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.