Manufacturers 

1A: The Power Tool Institute (made up of many of the major tool manufacturers) takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws. They cite both technical and practical/financial problems with mandating SawStop
technology – and there are a lot:

• The additional cost to manufacturers to implement this technology is estimated to be between $150-$200 per product, an amount that will be passed on to the consumer

1B: The manufacturers don’t want these safe saws to be mandatory because it means that they have to pay more money which ultimately will have to be paid by the customer. If the cost of the item goes up and people don’t want to pay this could effect the manufacturers income.

1C: Definitional Claim

1D: This is a valid and logical claim because in order for the companies to pay the extra money for these new saws they have to get the money from somewhere: the customers.

Consumer

2A: It is wrong to say that consumers will pay more if safer saws are required because society is already paying $2 billion per year due to preventable table saw injuries.  Society will save money if safer saws are required.

2B: People may not pay more for these saws because they are too expensive but if these saws are required people will save money because they won’t get injured and have medical bills.

2C: Evaluation claim

2D: This is a very logical and reasonable claim because it explains the amount of money people already spend and makes an assumption based off of it.

Industry Spokesperson

3A: “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it,” says Susan Young, who represents Black & Decker, Bosch, Makita and other power tool companies.

3B: Anybody who wants one of these safe saws can readily purchase one.

3C: Proposal Claim

3D: This claim makes a lot of sense for anyone who wants to personally purchase a safe saw, but companies don’t have to purchase them due to high cost.

3E: I disagree with that statement, companies should be held responsible for their workers safety and injuries should be covered for, because they would not have happened if the right technology was available for them.

Consumer Safety Advocates 

4A: Also, people don’t use blade guards because they are cumbersome and often interfere with the work. Automatic safety devices, in contrast, are invisible to the user and they don’t interfere with the work.

4B: The SawStop doesn’t bother the person using the saw whereas other blades need a blade guard that bothers people when they use it– causing them to take it off and injury to occur.

4C: Evaluation Claim

4D: This is a logical and provable claim because 2/3 of people who use blades had a guard that they took off due to it being in the way. The SawStop is safer because it lets people use the blade at ease without anything being in the way.

Injured Plaintiffs 

5A: Wec claims that “flesh detection and braking technology” and “user friendly blade guard(s)” have been available for years. The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when it is touched by human flesh. Wec says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.

5B: He is saying that he would not have gotten injured if proper and safer tools were available.

5C:  Casual Claim

5D: This is a very logical and reasonable claim. The point of the braking technology of the other saw is that it will stop injuries whether the injury was intended to be purposeful or not. The article goes on to say that Bosch was offered this advanced technology and denied it, which makes the injury one that could have been prevented.

Personal Injury Lawyers

6A: Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations. Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool. Although SawStop safety technology has been around for more than ten years, not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it. In fact, the world’s largest tool manufacturers rejected it.

6B: The website is stating that 40,000 people are injured from saws and that though technology exists to prevent it, the largest saw companies have rejected it.

6C: This is a factual claim because a fact is being stated that there are over 40,000 saw injuries a year.

6D: This is a persuadable claim, because his statement that safer technology exists can persuade someone who was injured by a saw to take action and realize that the company is at fault and not themselves.

Government Officials

7A: I want to emphasize that the injuries resulting from the use of table saws are, in many cases, particularly gruesome. While these injuries typically involve a laceration wound ranging from a minor scratch to a serious gash, we also know, based on the estimates from staff’s special studies that far more serious injuries are occurring all too often.

7B: The blade injuries that people suffer each year are very painful and gruesome and happen more often then they should.

7C: Casual Claim

7D: This claim is not factual but it does seem reasonable. The amount spent on blade injuries between 2007-2008 was an estimated 2.36 billion dollars, which would not have been the case had the blade been a SawStop blade.

News Reporters 

8A: “Table saw accidents send upward to 40,000 to emergency rooms across the US every year according to federal government estimates more than 3,000 of those people suffer amputations that is workers in cabinetry shops hobbyists kids in high school shop class cut off their fingers and hands.”

8B:  He is stating that not only are professionals affected by these faulty machines but young students and others are being affected as well.

8C: Casual Claim

8D: This is a very logical and reasonable claim because this SawStop would not only save the hands and fingers of employees, but young high school students as well. People not only are brutally injured but many loose their fingers and hands, and once they are lost how will employees and students ever be able to do the same work they once did before? Comapnies will have to end up hiring new employees.