1. Manufactures:

According to the Power Tool Institute, “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade.“

This is a definitional claim which argues that adopting the SawStop technology would not yield in a significant decrease of table saw injuries. I think this is a very interesting and strong argument for the manufacturers. What good would come of mandating an expensive technology promising safety if it would marginally decrease injuries?

Customers:

Larry Okrend states, “The greatly reduced risk of injury (and the associated medical costs) more than justifies the saw’s higher price.”

This is a proposal claim. It states that the higher cost is definitely worth it because it’s buying added safety for the user. It’s a very effective claim because it secretively raises a valid question: Can a price be put on safety?

Industry Spokespeople:

The Power Tool Institute, an industry group that represents Black & Decker and Bosch, said that the price of their table saws with the safety devices would “increase dramatically,”

This is a consequential claim made by the Power Tool institute. It’s a bold claim and they wish to point out that adding this patented technology to the saws would cause the prices of all saws to rise to such a point that it would be very difficult for an individual to purchase saws meeting industry standards.

Consumer Safety Advocates:

The NCL says, “The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the costs”

This is a proposal claim that the National Consumer’s League argues against saw manufacturers. With this, they claim that the price of mandating SawStop is well worth the safety of consumers. However, I don’t see why this should make SawStop mandatory. I do agree that the safety is great to have and is definitely worth the price. My question is, does that make it right to raise the price of every single saw? I’m sure certain individuals, scarce on income, would go for a cheaper saw and just be sure they operated the saw safely. For consumers liable for themselves, I don’t think saws should have to have this safety measure mandated. This is more appropriate in a work setting in which company owners are responsible for their employees.

Injured Plantiffs

Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.

This is a consequential claim. He claims if Bosch Industries had adopted the safer technology, his injury could have been prevented. I don’t think his claim is strong enough because by using the word “could” instead of “would”, a level of certainty is removed from the claim. Thus, the strength of the claim is decreased.

Personal Injury Lawyers:

“Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool”

This is a definition claim that sets Table saws as the most dangerous woodworking tool. It’s a very strong claim and I find it very effective. If table saws are the most dangerous tools, then every step should be taken to make them safer. They’re too dangerous and cause too many injuries that could be prevented if only they were safer.

Government Officials:

CHAIRMAN INEZ M. TENENBAU states, “Very serious injuries, including fractures and avulsions, as well as amputations, have changed the lives of tens of thousands of consumers and impacted their families forever.”

This is a consequential claim. It’s a very relevant point in this controversial matter because the injuries left behind by these dangerous machines are indeed permanent. The claim also points out how the tool’s capacity to damage goes beyond that of the body of the consumer; it also reaches to the consumer’s families.

New Reporters:

Everett Synder stated, “kickbacks are certainly more dangerous”.

This is a definition claim defining kickbacks as more dangerous than the blade of the saw. This is a very important claim because it challenges the productivity of all of this controversy over a technology that wouldn’t even be tackling the larger danger. Adding SawStop wouldn’t make these saws that much safer except to those individuals careless enough to come into contact with a high-speed sharp blade.