Safer Saws ~ Tony Shilling

1.  The constituent i have chosen to quote is from the perspective of handymen who have had experience with the saw, more specifically Larry Okrend, and have given their personal opinion of it, however stating that it is not needed; the handymen understand that safer saws are always a good thing, but working in a shop where these are present requires more focus and common sense than “guaranteed” safety.

2.   “After researching the facts of the case, I think mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary and counterproductive. Table saws are only part of the power-tool safety problem. Almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly. I’d like to see technology address the hazards of using shapers, circular saws, routers, planers and other high-risk tools. Even so, I know that technology alone can’t eliminate risk. There’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices.”

3.  Okrend is making an evaluational claim, having both used the SawStop technology and weighing options for utilizing it against the cons.

4.  Any statement made by an actual handyman who has been able to use the SawStop technology is absolutely going to hold more weight than anyone else; opinions from companies and even the creator are going to be biased.  Okrend recognizes the benefits of the technology and what it can do to prevent injury, but rightfully so he stands with accepting that anyone in this profession looking for the pinnacle of safety is in the wrong occupation.  His stance is surprising and quite bold, as it would possibly make more “sense” to simply advertise the SawStop’s benefits, and his understanding the reality of the situation is quite refreshing.  Okrend’s being a handyman is already persuasive enough, to both the public and other handymen, but his stating that not every saw should legally be obligated to use the technology comes across strong, and his conclusion with handymen needing a degree of common sense and responsibility just drives his point home completely.

5.  I can say without a doubt that i agree with Okrend.  Safer saw technology would be wonderful, as no one actually wants to lose a finger, and more power to SawStop for trying. But with it risking every saw being legally obligated to use the technology and the ever-possible repurcussive law entanglements there are too many faults to accept it.  His points on responsibility had me nodding in agreement, as I too feel that if you are a handyman then you already understand the dangers of the job and have to be as careful as possible.  Safety-nets just make it easier to personally slip-up, and if someone is not comfortable with that, the answer is not safer saws, but to leave the profession entirely.

This entry was posted in X Stop Saw. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Safer Saws ~ Tony Shilling

  1. sharpevil says:

    Claim – “I think”
    Type – Definitive
    Relevancy – Very relevant. When giving your opinion on a subject, it is important to have a thought process of some kind.

  2. jahne92 says:

    “Almost any tool can cause serious injury when used improperly” This is a claim because it is based on casual claims. It is saying that if you use any tool improperly it can cause serious injury, but you can use many tools and not get injured when you do not use them properly. You can turn a pencil upside down and write your name with it your using the tool improperly but you are not seriously injured.

  3. tonyshilling says:

    “Table saws are only part of the power tool safety problem.”

    Okrend is claiming that not only is the “safer saws” issue a problem with the power tools environment, but that there are additional problems that are not being addressed. With this claim, Okrend can lead into identifying other issues, and doing so will both further his point that there are other issues that could and should be addressed and that the saws need not be a priority, let alone a “necessity.”

  4. martyb68 says:

    Claim: “Even so, I know that technology alone can’t eliminate risk.”

    This is a proposal claim. He is saying that just this technology can not stop the risk of using dangerous power-tools. This claim is relevant because even with the safety technology you have to stay alert when using the tools. Although it is relevant, this is not an effective claim because they never state that this technology alone will completely eliminate all risks.

  5. aimelonsdorf says:

    “..mandating SawStops technology is counterproductive”

    Claim means: mandating this technology would set back saw enhancement and further advancements because it only uses a special type of blade. Also, after the “stop” is activated, the saw breaks, forcing the saw owner to have to replace the blade and aluminum, costing them more money.

    Counter claim: it is not counterproductive to allow for this new technology because instead of buying new fingers and paying hospital fees, a saw owner only has to pay a comparably small fee for a new blade and aluminum piece. Also, it prevents law suits. Companies would also be technology advancing.

  6. joeymleczko says:

    The claim within the claim that I choose to look at is: “…mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary…”
    This claim is a categorical claim, stating that it is unnecessary to have the safety mechanism on every table saw. The background supporting this claim implies that due to other power tools causing injuries, making table saws safer is not justified. I agree that mandating this safety mechanism is unnecessary; however, saying it is because other power tools cause injury is not a good reason. Instead, it should be unnecessary because it would raise the cost of all saws, which would cause many people to not buy the product.

  7. evan horner says:

    “Table saws are only part of the power-tool safety problem” this is a claim because it states that there are multiple other power tools with safety problems.

  8. tcorrao says:

    Claim : “SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary and counterproductive.”

    Claim means that SawStop’s technology doesn’t help people. It also says there is no point to having safer technology.

    I believe that this claim is untrue. The cost of losing a finger out weights the cost of a new saw.

  9. samsarlo says:

    The handyman said “I know that technology alone can’t eliminate risk. There’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices.”

    Although it is true that workers should be alert at all times, wouldn’t it be an ideally safe scenario in which the alert workers are using the safest possible tools? Even when the worker is being as safe and focused as possible, there is always the random component of human error. Sawstop was never supposed to be a substitute for safe work practices, merely a supplemental safety feature that protects us from our own human error.

  10. oteroj40 says:

    Claim: After researching the facts of the case, I think mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary.

    This claim is an evaluation claim. It’s evaluating the effectiveness of mandating SawStop as unnecessary. The claim is not very persuasive in convincing that mandating is unnecessary. It’s just his opinion. He doesn’t state any reason why he feels this way other than the fact that he has invested some research into the case.

  11. langer278 says:

    “Table saws are only part of the power-tool safety problem.”
    The claim is a definitional and evaluation claim because it defines that the table saws as a problem, but also states that it is only part of the problem by saying it’s just a piece that needs to be fixed with power-tool safety. This is irrelevant because it says that we shouldn’t use the table saw safety equipment because it doesn’t solve all the safety problems with different power tools. It does help with the table saw safety, which is the main purpose of the equipment, not to make the wood shop safe from all of the dangers that people face there. It just doesn’t make sense to ignore one piece of safety equipment because it doesn’t solve all of your dangerous problems you face.

  12. choffman17 says:

    1. “Almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly.”

    2. Casual claim

    3. This claim is one based off of common sense — it doesn’t need proof because everyone can acknowledge its validity. However, this argument categorizes all malpractice of a tool into the category of improper use, ignoring the existence of table saw malfunction. The handyman later goes on to say “that technology alone can’t eliminate risk. There’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices,” claiming that injuries can be prevented by proper use of the tools — true — but it does not include the realm of injuries occurring by fault of the machine, no matter how careful the consumer is to use it properly.

  13. 1. “There’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices.”

    2.Okrend says that staying focused and careful is the only to be safe while using dangerous tools.

    3. This is a definitional claim.

    4. Okrend’s claim is reasonable claim, but not accurate. SafeSaw is a valid substitute for preventing injury. It is reasonable, especially for a handyman, to make the claim that staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices is the best way to handle dangerous tools, but he claims that it is the only way, making the quality and persuasiveness of the claim absent.

    5. I agree with the point that Okrend is trying to get across, but the structure of his claim is wrong. If he were to say “Staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices is the most efficient way to work with high-risk tools,” then his claim would have much better quality and be more reasonable. It would not be fully accurate because there is no evidence to prove the claim that it is the most efficient way to work with high-risk tools. The claim would be persuasive common sense wise, but may not be persuasive to everyone.

  14. apdm3 says:

    In the Handyman Perspective, Larry Okrend claims that “there’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices.” I think this claim is true and applicable for table saws, as well as all power tools. Okrend discusses how table saw accidents most commonly occur because users carelessly and permanently remove the blade guard, splitter and anti-kickback pawls. He says people do this because doing so may make using the tool more convenient, but it’s also infinitely more dangerous. Therefore, I don’t think all the advanced and experienced table saw users should be forced to purchase new, expensive saws. All important information about the product should be provided and let the consumer decided for them self if they want to purchase it.

  15. stillt27 says:

    Claim: “Almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly.”

    This claim is against the use of adopting SawStop technology. I don’t think this claim can persuade people not to buy it simply because even though any tool can be used improperly , the tool does reduce the risk of an injury happening compared to other saws.

  16. allyhodgson93 says:

    claim: “Technology alone can’t eliminate risk.”
    evaluation: This consequential claim is not contradictory and does make sense. The claim is accurate because there is a risk in almost anything. Using this Mac, as safe as it seems, it could short circuit and electrocute me. This claim is very supportive to his argument because it is showing how unnecessary the SawStop is.

  17. dalehamstra27 says:

    Claim: Technology alone can’t eliminate risk.

    This claim makes perfect sense. No matter how safe the technology is, there will always be some level of risk involved. Plus, nothing can completely compensate for human error. It is a consequential claim. This claim does support his argument that mandating SawStop would be counterproductive.

  18. nanacao says:

    “After researching the facts of the case, I think mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary and counterproductive.” This is an evaluation claim. The idea indicates from the evidences provided in this specific case SawStop technology does not need to be mandated. This is not relevant because it does not provide facts from the other side that claim the need of using SawStop technology to prevent some sorts of injure.

  19. davidbdale says:

    Of course, not every table saw user is a professional. The saws that will be more expensive by the largest percentage if a mandate is enacted are the cheap saws sold to home users most likely (is this true? is sounds true?) to cut their hands off. For them, you need different advice. Here you focus mostly on Okrend’s authority to speak, Tony, as you often do. Analyzing persuasiveness based on who offers an argument isn’t irrelevant, but it shouldn’t substitute for a close response to the claims themselves. Offered anonymously, they need to stand on their own merits.
    Grade Recorded.

    “But with it risking every saw being legally obligated to use the technology and the ever-possible repurcussive law entanglements there are too many faults to accept it.”

  20. tonyshilling says:

    I absolutely agree that analyzing persuasiveness is relevant, however, i would go as far to state that it is more important than the claim itself. People are gullible; that is merely human nature, and good advertising and a strong voice can sway anyone’s opinions. Claims are obviously important, but you need not be suggesting something that is the voice of reason, let alone something sane, for it to sound “good” and for people to nod their heads in agreement.

    • davidbdale says:

      No doubt you are right about how people react to bad arguments from persuasive people, Tony. Our job in this class is to see through the presentation to the validity of the claims. We base our evaluation of persuasiveness first on the truth of the claims, their relevance to the question at hand, the soundness of the reasoning, and the sufficiency of the support to prove the thesis.

      Haircuts and vocal pitch can be persuasive too, of course, but here they don’t count for much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s