Manufacturers: “If you accidentally run your hand into the blade it’ll stop it so quickly you just get a little nick instead of maybe taking some fingers off.” Steve Gass is using a comparison claim to show the difference between his SawStop and a regular table saw in terms of safety. His claim is well-founded as there is no sort of safety in the average table saw so the SawStop will perform better when it comes to the user keeping their fingers and overall safety.
Customers: “the company has testimonials from customers of more than 1,000 known “saves”—consumers who have written and sent pictures showing that they have been spared serious injury because of the safety design.” This is a factual claim that the National Consumers League makes in their press release, and shows that many of the people who have bought and used the SawStop have sent in the fact that it has worked in helping them stay safer.
Industry Spokespeople: “They cite both technical and practical/financial problems with mandating SawStop technology.” This is an evaluative claim from members of the Power Tool Institute, who would have the expertise to have a say in an issue such and regulations and mandates on power tools. They evaluate the idea that safety regulations with devices such as the SawStop could lead to issues that may have not been considered.
Consumer Safety Advocates: “The Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to approve publication of the draft notice in the Federal Register that will announce an extension of 60 days for the comment period for an advance notice of proposed rulemaking” This is a recommendation claim on extending the hearing for comments on the issue of saw blade contact injuries. They have the power to regulate votes for a hearing on the subject, and so therefore can convince the audience to adopt this ruling
Injured Plaintiffs: “It furthers that Bosch lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep ‘flesh detection and braking technology’ from being required on table saws.” An injured plaintiff states an evaluative claim in their lawsuit, describing what has happened and what should be done on the subject of table saw safety. It can be inferred that the plaintiff’s option on the course of action to take is to create mandates on table saw safety based on their injuries.
Personal Injury Lawyers: “Every year, there are over 40,000 table saw injuries, resulting in more than 4,000 amputations.” This is a factual claim from injury lawyers on the subject of table saws. The numbers on those who are injured by table saws is an indisputable fact that they would have used in advocating for their clients.
Government Officials: “When the Commission first considered this issue in 2006, the injury statistics and disturbing natures of these life-altering, yet preventable injuries were unacceptable.” This is a moral claim from Chairman Tenenbaum on how the issue of table saw safety has been negatively affecting people. Describing the injuries as preventable shows that Tenenbaum believes that something should be done about these injuries he sees as wrong, as nothing has been changed yet to prevent them.
News Reporters: “it’s unclear whether the Consumer Product Safety Commission will finally pass a rule requiring all new saws to have an active injury prevention monitoring system built into them.” NPR makes an evaluative claim on what they believe will happen on the issue of table saw safety mandates. As a news source, they have gained information and sources and have come to an indecisive conclusion on the future of these mandates and if or when the CPSC will institute mandates.