Manufacturers: “During a braking event, carbide teeth could be thrown through the blade opening.”
This is a categorical claim as it says how things could go wrong and injuries may still occur if one does use SawStop. However, this claim has not been proven, as no evidence has been provided to confirm so.
Customers: “There’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices.”
This is a consequential claim saying that most power tool injuries are due to the user’s lack of staying alert, being focused and following instructions. Therefore, this claim makes regulating the SawStop seem useless and unnecessary. Although I do agree with the statement, I do not think this claim is very effective, as using the SawStop would only decrease the chance of injury, even for a power tool user who “adheres to safe work practices.”
Industry Spokespeople: Larry Okrend claimed, “Every commercial job site and institutional shop should be equipped with this type of saw.”
This is a proposal claim saying that all stores selling table saws should sell the SawStop. I like the way this claim is worded because it is not implying that all saws sold on commercial job sites should be SawStops, but rather at least make the SawStop available to consumers. I do not think this claim is very convincing on its own though, as more support is needed.
Consumer Safety Advocates: The NCL claimed, “The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the costs.”
This is a proposal claim saying that the price of regulating SawStop is well-worth the safety and protection of consumers. Although this new technology would greatly decrease the amount of injuries due to the use of table saws, I do not think that means that the SawStop should be required amongst all table saws.
Injured Plaintiffs: “Wec said his permanent and traumatic injury could have been prevented.”
This is a consequential claim saying that his injury was mainly due to the fact that he was using an unsafe saw. This claim alone is not too convincing, as there is no evidence or indication that if he had been using the SawStop, then he would not have experienced any injuries.
Personal Injury Lawyers: “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”
This is a definitional claim saying that of all the tools used in woodworking, table saws are the most dangerous, causing the most injuries amongst its users. I think this is a very good and worthy claim as it makes one realize that if it is possible to make the most dangerous woodworking tool safer, then we should do everything we can to achieve said safer saws. This claim makes mandating the SawStop seem very sensible.
Government Officials: “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 saying that most injuries caused by table saws are very serious and often permanent. It shows how when one is injured by a table saw, it may not simply be a sliced finger, but rather an amputated hand or arm. I think this is a persuasive claim, as it makes it appear like using the SawStop could have prevented many devastating injuries which greatly affected the lives of the table saw user, as well as their loved ones.
News Reporters: “Gass’s saw uses an electrical sensor to detect when the blade touches flesh instead of wood. “
This is a definitional claim as it is defines how the SawStop technology works. This claim is simple and short but I think it is effective as it straightforwardly explains how this powerful technology works to the average person.