- Manufacturers – “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.” This is a consequential claim, stating that increased regulations would cost the manufacturers money that would be passed on to the consumer, effectively supporting their defense against the SawStop.
- Customers –“I am 110% against a mandated requirement for this device, especially when it is profit motivated.” This is an evaluative claim that states that the mandate for SawStop is bad because it is motivated by profit, which the customer (forum member) does not clarify, losing some credibility.
- Industry Spokespeople – “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.” This is a consequential claim that clears up the idea that cuts are the big issue with table saw injuries, and that kickbacks are the bigger issue.
- Consumer Safety Advocates – “Current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.” This is a proposal claim that is very compelling because it is supported with statistics that state that 40,000 injuries and 1,000 amputations occur each year due to table saws.
- Injured Plaintiffs – “A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. ‘colluded with its competitors’ and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep ‘flesh detection and braking technology’ from being required on table saws.” This is a consequential claim that effectively blames the Bosch Tool Corp. for his cut by statin that they kept the CPSC from making regulations that would have prevented his accident.
- Personal Injury Lawyers – ““Though the proposal was introduced in 2003, it has languished due to industry opposition.” This is a consequential claim. It is not necessarily compelling as it now shifts the blame from the CPSC to the industry itself.
- 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, although it is not compelling, as it does not state whether the changes are positive or negative and how they are either one.
- News Reporters – “What came next is a bit of controversy as Gass attempted to pursue legislation to make his patented technology mandatory through the Consumer Protection Safety Commission, apparently after receiving little support for his proposal to license the technology to manufacturers.” This is an evaluative claim as it states that Gass’s attempt to patent his technology, and then request its employment to be mandatory, has become a controversy, fully supporting it with the insight to see the monopoly it would create.