65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another


Recommended Posts

I started out with a .357 S&W #27 double action revolver so that kind of trigger is in my comfort zone. The P250's double action trigger is about the smoothest I've ever fired in an auto so it feels VERY "right," which is half the accuracy battle. I love it.

You're about to make my wife very upset, I'm feeling the urge to buy a new handgun... :-)

You're welcome ;)

One thing though: the one problem with the P250's trigger is a longish reset, but practice takes care of getting used to that. Then again, there are 2 different length triggers that can be swapped in a few minutes by removing the fire control module, taking off the trigger spring & bar and swapping triggers.

Well, if this is the type of society you want to live in, good for you.

It's not that I "want" to live in such a society - we have been left with little choice when criminals own the streets. Fools on this thread believe outlawing guns will resolve the issue. By doing so, you only remove the gun from law abiding citizens. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun no matter what laws are in effect. When our police force, at minimum staff due to budget cuts, are reduced to little more than custodians who clean up the mess after the crime, society is left to defend themselves.

We can either play the roll of the victim, living in fear and praying that when something does happen that the criminal is caught, tried and actually sentence beyond the typical slap on the wrist joke of a sentence. Or, we can stand up and defend ourselves.

You talk about spending money (which no one has) to deter crime. My solution is FREE - instill fear into the criminal mind. Fear that every potential victim and witness may be armed and will put a bullet in your head.

Well, if this is the type of society you want to live in, good for you.

Exactly. Some people don't seem to realize that their thirst for vengeance causes the violent society that makes them scared enough to think they need to carry a weapon at all times. They don't see the circular nature of it or the fact that they are the root of the problem just as much as any criminal. I am free to walk tall and proud with fear.

It's not that I "want" to live in such a society - we have been left with little choice when criminals own the streets. Fools on this thread believe outlawing guns will resolve the issue. By doing so, you only remove the gun from law abiding citizens. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun no matter what laws are in effect. When our police force, at minimum staff due to budget cuts, are reduced to little more than custodians who clean up the mess after the crime, society is left to defend themselves.

That isn't the case here where I live. Societal breakdown may have already happened where you live but around here we invest in society rather than leave it to each person to defend himself or herself. It doesn't need to be a society of the fittest where grandma needs to hold her own just as much as the next guy.

  • Like 1

That isn't the case here where I live. Societal breakdown may have already happened where you live but around here we invest in society rather than leave it to each person to defend himself or herself. It doesn't need to be a society of the fittest where grandma needs to hold her own just as much as the next guy.

So, explain to us all how your society protects grandma from being mugged, shot or beaten? Explain exactly how each program your society invested in is actually there to protect her from harm at the moment the crime occurs. Explain to us exactly how your society has abundance of funds to pay for such investments.

As I thought....no matter what investments your little society has in place, it cannot protect anyone at the moment a crime occurs. You might accomplish reducing crime, but you sure as heck cannot prevent it.

Fred, you may not realize this but Canada has roughly the same (if not higher) number of handguns per capita as the US. Wikipedia says that there were about 1 million handguns in Canada in 2000 vs 77 million in the US. Sounds good until you remember that Canada has 34 million people compared to 312 million in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Guns

The overall number of guns (including shotguns and rifles) per capita in the US is much higher though, probably because many hunters will own multiple guns for different types of hunting.

The only controversy here comes from the fact that we have jackasses in this (and EVERY gun related thread) from other countries who just LOVE telling us how to run ours. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that higher private gun ownership has resulted in lowering the violent crime rates here. And of course, these same idiots think that the things they see on TV or in the movies (shooting to wound/disable, firing "warning shots", etc.) are actually reasonably possible or recommended. If they insist on watching so much TV, I might suggest they watch a couple of episodes of MythBusters, specifically "Bullets Fired Up" and "Unarmed and Unharmed", and just about any other gun related episode.

I've been to Reading a few times, and I can tell you the trails out there can become quite secluded. The way I see it is this, these kids were flat out assaulting the man. By the time he drew his gun they had knocked him off his bike and had him pinned to a fence. The gloves were off. This man had every right to believe his life was in danger and took the appropriate steps to protect himself.

I personally cannot stand this idea that people defending themselves or their loved ones with guns should be shunned. I'm not sure where "guns are bad" came from, but it needs to stop. The idea that bad guys should, and can be be allowed to walk all over us and loved ones needs to stop.

The only controversy here comes from the fact that we have jackasses in this (and EVERY gun related thread) from other countries who just LOVE telling us how to run ours. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that higher private gun ownership has resulted in lowering the violent crime rates here. And of course, these same idiots think that the things they see on TV or in the movies (shooting to wound/disable, firing "warning shots", etc.) are actually reasonably possible or recommended. If they insist on watching so much TV, I might suggest they watch a couple of episodes of MythBusters, specifically "Bullets Fired Up" and "Unarmed and Unharmed", and just about any other gun related episode.

In that case please feel free to explain, how come that the US has 4.8 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants compared to rates as low as 2.0 and even lower in Western Europe and other developed countries?

In that case please feel free to explain, how come that the US has 4.8 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants compared to rates as low as 2.0 and even lower in Western Europe and other developed countries?

land with the most crazies ;)

Those are my autos. I also have revolvers ranging from an 1847 Colt Walker.44 and 1858 Remington New Army to a Magnum Research BFR in .500 Magnum. Also have a Thompson Center Contender single shot with .44 Mag and 45-70 Govt. barrels.

CZ's are nice. My SIG 1911 is very tuned and a nail driver, but a bit heavy for day to day carry. For that I use the SIG P250 subcompact (.40 S&W) setup (also have the 2SUM full size kit.) Did you know that SIG just came out with a P250 subcompact with a rail handle? I'm going to call and see if the new handle will fit the existing guns - I'd love to have the option of a laser or tac-lite.

I was looking into that on their site. They said that I can convert mine to the the SUB-C and add the rail handle. Not sure how that works but I will see what options they have. I can't wait to get it to the range. I love laser sites. Sounds like you are quite the collector of some well thought out guns.

I have a CZ SUB-C - of course everything is modeled after the 1911 it seems :)

So, explain to us all how your society protects grandma from being mugged, shot or beaten? Explain exactly how each program your society invested in is actually there to protect her from harm at the moment the crime occurs. Explain to us exactly how your society has abundance of funds to pay for such investments.

As I thought....no matter what investments your little society has in place, it cannot protect anyone at the moment a crime occurs. You might accomplish reducing crime, but you sure as heck cannot prevent it.

By the very nature of it, by reducing crime to lower levels, you prevent the would-be victims of those additional crimes from being victimized in the first place. Less crime, less victims. Simple as that.

Point proven. People like you should not have a gun. I couldn't care less if you hve reasons of protecting your family. Your shoot to kill mentality is over the top and scary.

Oh right. So we'll just put a bullet in them, no worries.

Are you ****ing kidding me?

shoot to kill is the only way. Survivors sue.

In that case please feel free to explain, how come that the US has 4.8 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants compared to rates as low as 2.0 and even lower in Western Europe and other developed countries?

our closeness to a very large border with human and drug smugglers as well as street criminals who sell/distribute those drugs. Add on top of that the lowered mental capacity of those that are on those drugs... and i think you have an idea. Almots all violent crime happens over drugs, money, and sex partners. Drugs and money have a heavy overlap so you will see it worse at the border and the inner cities.

  • Like 1

Fred, you may not realize this but Canada has roughly the same (if not higher) number of handguns per capita as the US. Wikipedia says that there were about 1 million handguns in Canada in 2000 vs 77 million in the US. Sounds good until you remember that Canada has 34 million people compared to 312 million in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Guns

The overall number of guns (including shotguns and rifles) per capita in the US is much higher though, probably because many hunters will own multiple guns for different types of hunting.

Those guns have trigger locks and are stored in gun safes with the ammo stored somewhere else (or whatever the laws are for gun storage since they probably vary by province). Those guns are owned by collectors or gun clubs.

It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada.

The good news is that those guns aren't walking around on the street. Any person could become dangerous if provoked or mentally stressed (the whole temporary insanity claim) and complete their journey towards being "armed and dangerous".

You don't have to worry that some guy who just took your parking spot is going to pull a gun and shoot you. You don't have to walk scared down dark alleyways because somebody may be "packing".

Gun ownership rate is about 27% of households with great regional variations, rural much higher than urban, west higher than east.

Those guns aren't in urban Southern Ontario (where I live). Those guns are out west in Alberta and British Columbia where, surprise, surprise, the crime rate is significantly higher. Now you might think the guns are a response to higher crime rates but I'm thinking that gun ownership leads to higher crime rates. I don't know a single person in Toronto who owns firearms. Parents would not let kids play at those houses if they were to find that sort of information out. One would naturally assume they were moonlighting in the drug trade or something. You would be thought of as some sort of thug.

It is a different culture here. We expect our police forces to host at-risk youth basketball/hockey tournaments. We expect drop-in programs at our local Community Centres. We expect adult education programs and job training programs. We expect our local libraries to teach r?sum? writing courses and to provide computer/internet access for the community. We expect our public schools to be at the centre of each community with parenting courses and all sorts of extras. If a local school is in an impoverished area and is performing below provincial expectations we send in experts and provide additional funding to fix the problem. We certainly don't punish under-performing schools by giving them less money. We understand that not every community should be considered equal. Some have advantages that others do not.

Those guns have trigger locks and are stored in gun safes with the ammo stored somewhere else (or whatever the laws are for gun storage since they probably vary by province). Those guns are owned by collectors or gun clubs.

The good news is that those guns aren't walking around on the street. Any person could become dangerous if provoked or mentally stressed (the whole temporary insanity claim) and complete their journey towards being "armed and dangerous".

You don't have to worry that some guy who just took your parking spot is going to pull a gun and shoot you. You don't have to walk scared down dark alleyways because somebody may be "packing".

Those guns aren't in urban Southern Ontario (where I live). Those guns are out west in Alberta and British Columbia where, surprise, surprise, the crime rate is significantly higher. Now you might think the guns are a response to higher crime rates but I'm thinking that gun ownership leads to higher crime rates. I don't know a single person in Toronto who owns firearms. Parents would not let kids play at those houses if they were to find that sort of information out. One would naturally assume they were moonlighting in the drug trade or something. You would be thought of as some sort of thug.

It is a different culture here. We expect our police forces to host at-risk youth basketball/hockey tournaments. We expect drop-in programs at our local Community Centres. We expect adult education programs and job training programs. We expect our local libraries to teach r?sum? writing courses and to provide computer/internet access for the community. We expect our public schools to be at the centre of each community with parenting courses and all sorts of extras. If a local school is in an impoverished area and is performing below provincial expectations we send in experts and provide additional funding to fix the problem. We certainly don't punish under-performing schools by giving them less money. We understand that not every community should be considered equal. Some have advantages that others do not.

you see you're living in totally different circumstnaces.You also seem to have a demented view of life in the United States. I'm 27 years old and never seen a gun pulled out or shot in violence. Violent crimes generally happen in terrible neighborhoods. In fact you can make maps of where not to go.

http://projects.latimes.com/homicide/map/?year=2011

I promise you that the bigger the circle on that map the more drugs and gangs who deal them there are. And that is L.A., a city that is considered violent. It's not nearly that bad across most of the country.. but still easily predictable by the same factors.

as for our spending on education

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm

start at 2:16 to learn the truth about education spending.

I personally cannot stand this idea that people defending themselves or their loved ones with guns should be shunned. I'm not sure where "guns are bad" came from, but it needs to stop. The idea that bad guys should, and can be be allowed to walk all over us and loved ones needs to stop.

It's mostly because they don't trust gun owners to be responsible.

The guy in this instance was justified but then you have instances where a guy was shot after seen fleeing an empty house with a microwave. Killing someone who is attacking you in the middle of nowhere is imminent danger. Shooting someone in the back who is running away with a $20 appliance is savage and cold blooded.

While I don't trust gun owners unconditionally, I'd rather have them in the hands of the licensed and trained than have them become a black market item.

In that case please feel free to explain, how come that the US has 4.8 homicides per 100.000 inhabitants compared to rates as low as 2.0 and even lower in Western Europe and other developed countries?

Are those all gun-related homicides?

You can kill people in more ways than just a gun.

I just verified that the gun related homicide rate is actually 2.97 per 100,000 for the US in 2010 of which is the latest year stats were available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

There any many European countries that have higher rates. Mexico is 3.66.

  • Like 1

you see you're living in totally different circumstnaces.You also seem to have a demented view of life in the United States. I'm 27 years old and never seen a gun pulled out or shot in violence. Violent crimes generally happen in terrible neighborhoods. In fact you can make maps of where not to go.

That often is the problem with the United States. Some people live in gated communities while others live in "no go" zones. Both are just as much in prisons as the other.

As always, it doesn't matter how much you spend as how you spend it. Some states have an appalling level of education to the point where just about anybody with means should really send their kid to a private school. I also don't buy the "union" cop-out as they exist here in Canada and the average teacher salary here in Ontario was $75,688 in 2007. Perhaps you aren't paying your teachers enough to get the best people. I can't imagine my wife taking a $11,000 to $14000 pay cut to work in California or New York nevermind the low tax states. She'd do a heck of a lot less, I guarantee it. There is a reason why Canadian universities take only a small percentage of the people who apply for the BE programs.

http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/education-spending-in-the-us/

start at 2:16 to learn the truth about education spending.

youtube video: _H2_vjybc6E

That video is as simplistic as the video he critiques. I challenge you to justify the net difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. They may use a different process but the accomplish the exact same thing. In one example the company pays its full taxes (let's say $20,000) but then receives a $10,000 subsidy (money taken from other taxpayers). In the other example the company pays only half of its full taxes (say $10,000) while the government does without the extra $10,000 in tax. Where do you think the government makes up for that shortfall? Why, from other taxpayers of course. The net result is no difference. He lambastes her for using these terms interchangeably but either way it's a $10,000 handout to a corporation. Presumably doing it as a targeted tax cut allows him to sleep better at night much in the same way that "collateral damage" sounds better than "dead civilians". It doesn't fool me though.

That wasn't the reason why you had me watch the video though. I just wanted to point out that he was no better than the one he criticizes. He uses the same tactics that he accuses her of doing. His video doesn't actually propose anything (other than not using Annie Leonard's videos in the classroom). Presumably he thinks the U.S. should spend less money but without a comprehensive plan this would just lead to lower test scores.

That often is the problem with the United States. Some people live in gated communities while others live in "no go" zones. Both are just as much in prisons as the other.

As always, it doesn't matter how much you spend as how you spend it. Some states have an appalling level of education to the point where just about anybody with means should really send their kid to a private school. I also don't buy the "union" cop-out as they exist here in Canada and the average teacher salary here in Ontario was $75,688 in 2007. Perhaps you aren't paying your teachers enough to get the best people. I can't imagine my wife taking a $11,000 to $14000 pay cut to work in California or New York nevermind the low tax states. She'd do a heck of a lot less, I guarantee it. There is a reason why Canadian universities take only a small percentage of the people who apply for the BE programs.

http://www.realonlin...ding-in-the-us/

That video is as simplistic as the video he critiques. I challenge you to justify the net difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. They may use a different process but the accomplish the exact same thing. In one example the company pays its full taxes (let's say $20,000) but then receives a $10,000 subsidy (money taken from other taxpayers). In the other example the company pays only half of its full taxes (say $10,000) while the government does without the extra $10,000 in tax. Where do you think the government makes up for that shortfall? Why, from other taxpayers of course. The net result is no difference. He lambastes her for using these terms interchangeably but either way it's a $10,000 handout to a corporation. Presumably doing it as a targeted tax cut allows him to sleep better at night much in the same way that "collateral damage" sounds better than "dead civilians". It doesn't fool me though.

That wasn't the reason why you had me watch the video though. I just wanted to point out that he was no better than the one he criticizes. He uses the same tactics that he accuses her of doing. His video doesn't actually propose anything (other than not using Annie Leonard's videos in the classroom). Presumably he thinks the U.S. should spend less money but without a comprehensive plan this would just lead to lower test scores.

his point on education was that the amount you paid the teachers was a non-issue. You can raise pay rates exponentially and it doesn't matter at all... so why continue to pay them more?

letting people keep the money they earn is NOT A HANDOUT. That kind of thinking assumes that the money earned by private sector is the government's and that they allow us to keep some. That's a marxist way of thinking and it doesn't happen like that here in the USA.

Exactly. Some people don't seem to realize that their thirst for vengeance causes the violent society that makes them scared enough to think they need to carry a weapon at all times. They don't see the circular nature of it or the fact that they are the root of the problem just as much as any criminal. I am free to walk tall and proud with fear.

You still confuse the cause and effect! Surely you realize this man wasn't thirsting for vengeance going about his business?! He was assaulted! If you want to prove your point tell us right here how any amount of "investment in society" will actually protect a person at the moment of a physical harm. You can't sit here and deny that violence does occur in your perfect world. It does. And when it does, you don't have the right to protect yourself to whatever end.

Are those all gun-related homicides?

You can kill people in more ways than just a gun.

I just verified that the gun related homicide rate is actually 2.97 per 100,000 for the US in 2010 of which is the latest year stats were available:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Gun_violence

There any many European countries that have higher rates. Mexico is 3.66.

wow its dropped then since 1994 (which i HIGHLY doubt). NOTE:

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows: (published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention )

  • U.S.A. 14.24
  • Brazil 12.95
  • Mexico 12.69
  • Estonia 12.26
  • Argentina 8.93
  • Northern Ireland 6.63
  • Finland 6.46
  • Switzerland 5.31
  • France 5.15
  • Canada 4.31
  • Norway 3.82
  • Austria 3.70
  • Portugal 3.20
  • Israel 2.91
  • Belgium 2.90
  • Australia 2.65
  • Slovenia 2.60
  • Italy 2.44
  • New Zealand 2.38
  • Denmark 2.09
  • Sweden 1.92
  • Kuwait 1.84
  • Greece 1.29
  • Germany 1.24
  • Hungary 1.11
  • Ireland 0.97
  • Spain 0.78
  • Netherlands 0.70
  • Scotland 0.54
  • England and Wales 0.41
  • Taiwan 0.37
  • Singapore 0.21
  • Mauritius 0.19
  • Hong Kong 0.14
  • South Korea 0.12
  • Japan 0.05
  • looking for more recent data...

his point on education was that the amount you paid the teachers was a non-issue. You can raise pay rates exponentially and it doesn't matter at all... so why continue to pay them more?

letting people keep the money they earn is NOT A HANDOUT. That kind of thinking assumes that the money earned by private sector is the government's and that they allow us to keep some. That's a marxist way of thinking and it doesn't happen like that here in the USA.

Teachers should be treated as full professionals just like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. You should want to have the best and brightest teaching the next generation so that the next generation can surpass the last one. As I say, unionized salaries cannot be the problem as Canada pays its teachers more and has also higher results to show for it. I'm not sure where your money in education is going but it wouldn't seem to be the exclusive problem of teacher salaries as many non-unionists would like to believe.

Getting back to the posted video, there is no effective difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. Either can equally be considered handouts or neither can. A drop in revenue of $10,000 has the same net effect as an increase of expenses by $10,000. It all goes down to the mathematics of NI=R-E. Call it what you will but there mathematics won't lie to you. It produces the same result. Of course from a US government point of view, the formula should actually be NL=R-E but you get the idea. Anyone who says that they are against government subsidies but in favour of targeted tax cuts is just fooling themselves.

wow its dropped then since 1994 (which i HIGHLY doubt). NOTE:

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows: (published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention )

  • U.S.A. 14.24
  • ...
  • Japan 0.05
  • looking for more recent data...

I hate to do their job for them but those statistics may include suicides.

Teachers should be treated as full professionals just like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. You should want to have the best and brightest teaching the next generation so that the next generation can surpass the last one. As I say it isn't unions or salaries that is the problem as Canada pays its teachers more and has higher results to show for it. I'm not sure where your money in education is going but it wouldn't seem to be the exclusive problem of teacher salaries as many non-unionists would like to believe.

Getting back to the posted video, there is no effective difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. Either can equally be considered handouts or neither can. A drop in revenue of $10,000 has the same net effect as an increase of expenses by $10,000. It all goes down to the mathematics of NI=R-E. Call it what you will but there mathematics won't lie to you. It produces the same result. Of course from a US government point of view, the formula should actually be NL=R-E but you get the idea. Anyone who says that they are against government subsidies but in favour of targeted tax cuts is just fooling themselves.

we'll start treating teachers like professions when they start acting like it. Right now they won't handle our kids, particularly our boys, without ritalin and their ability to educate and inspire just blows. I consider them to be nothing but overpaid, over glorified babysitters. Most everything of importance I've ever learned has been from debating and arguing on line with people like you either from the facts/research you come up with or the facts/research I come up with. Compulsory education was out done by my curiosity online.

Teachers should be treated as full professionals just like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. You should want to have the best and brightest teaching the next generation so that the next generation can surpass the last one. As I say, unionized salaries cannot be the problem as Canada pays its teachers more and has also higher results to show for it. I'm not sure where your money in education is going but it wouldn't seem to be the exclusive problem of teacher salaries as many non-unionists would like to believe.

Getting back to the posted video, there is no effective difference between a targeted tax cut and a subsidy. Either can equally be considered handouts or neither can. A drop in revenue of $10,000 has the same net effect as an increase of expenses by $10,000. It all goes down to the mathematics of NI=R-E. Call it what you will but there mathematics won't lie to you. It produces the same result. Of course from a US government point of view, the formula should actually be NL=R-E but you get the idea. Anyone who says that they are against government subsidies but in favour of targeted tax cuts is just fooling themselves.

I hate to do their job for them but those statistics may include suicides.

it's a lot easier when you are a small island nation with largely secured borders.

You still confuse the cause and effect! Surely you realize this man wasn't thirsting for vengeance going about his business?! He was assaulted! If you want to prove your point tell us right here how any amount of "investment in society" will actually protect a person at the moment of a physical harm. You can't sit here and deny that violence does occur in your perfect world. It does. And when it does, you don't have the right to protect yourself to whatever end.

The senior left the house carrying a gun so clearly he was prepared to do violence. Investment is society needs to be done far in advance of a violent crime. You need to prevent the apathy, hopelessness, anger and frustration with society from taking grip. You need to give people other options.

There will always be a tiny minority that will have their own reasons to commit crimes so it isn't realistic to think that all crime can be completely eliminated no matter how hard your try or how much money you invest but that shouldn't be an excuse to not to bother trying at all. It is still cheaper at this point to prevent than it is to punish.

People shouldn't have to walk around being scared. They shouldn't have to hide in gated communities. Grandma shouldn't have to stand toe-to-toe with criminals and let the best shooter win. These are not badges of merit for society.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I notice how you dodged the questions I had about the racism shown by ignorant, gullible, cowardly people when the Poles, like your partner, were the immigrants. Ahem. I wonder how you'd feel if native born Brits suddenly treated you as "dirty crooked immigrant" for being half Trump-American? If they ordered you to leave and "go back to your corrupt country" (on the other side of the Atlantic), would you go? The truth is based on facts as supported by evidence. As requested in your previous posts, I have used the facts in your own post to show everyone the truth.
    • US citizens are paying to their government, who could use that to fund healthcare and tuition and relieve the costs of these for citizens instead of making tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the rich. I'm not saying that tariffs are the correct solution, but what else would they be used for? What else could Trump have in mind for wanting them, if he hasn't figured out that labor costs are higher in the US?
    • I’m in need of a new chair and it sounds like the backrest cannot be locked? I also sat on a Herman miller and was devastated that it couldn’t be locked also, what is going on with chairs. I want to be able to lock the backrest into any position but not even the Herman’s do that
    • Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 Ergonomic Office Chair review: The Ikea of chairs by Steven Parker I've reviewed a few gaming chairs over the past three years or so and generally found them to score well in our reviews. SIHOO reached out asking if I was interested in taking a look at their flagship chair, the Doro C300 Pro V2. I never got the chance to check out its predecessor, but the V2 is described as an "Adaptive Ergonomic Chair." It became available to buy in April of this year. Let's get things rolling with a closer look at the specifications and features. Specifications Doro C300 Pro V2 Model Ergonomic Materials Mesh Back and Seat; Soft PU Coated Armrests Height adjustability 45.5 - 53 cm / 17.5" - 20.9" Seat (w+d) 52 x 43 - 47 cm / 20.5" x 16.9" - 18.5" (adjustable) Backrest 52 – 60 cm / 20.5" - 23.6" (adjustable) Lumbar support Mesh built-in (adjustable) Armrest adjustability 8D Bionic Armrests Rocking angle 105°, 120°, 135° (fixed) Neck support Mesh built-in (adjustable) Net weight 27.3 kg / 59.64 lbs Weight support 150 kg / 330 lbs Colors Black, White Warranty 5 years (upon registering) Price $499.99, $539.99 Introduction At first glance, it looks like a chair that in another life wants to be a Herman Miller; It certainly looks like my Aeron Remastered, but the Doro C300 Pro V2 has quite a few more features and costs quite a bit less. SIHOO says that it is made up of a "DynaCore" system that tracks your movement and synchronizes the headrest, backrest, lumbar support, and armrests as you shift, twist, or recline. They also say that the "SyncroFlex Backrest" molds to your spine, which kind of describes how the mesh fabric works in most ergonomic chairs, but anyway. Below are the meat and potatoes measurements for the chair. Here is the same tech sheet, but in inches. Durability I would be remiss to not talk about the various durability testing this chair underwent before coming to market, as this is claimed on the product page. First of all, the chair is BIFMA-, SGS-, and TÜV-certified. As for durability, the tests undergone were: 100,000 Castor cycles tested 120,000 Armrest cycles tested 120,000 Recline cycles tested 120,000 Gas lift cycles tested 60,000 Armrest durability cycles tested 120,000 Rotation cycles tested Nothing about weights testing, though. Now that's all disclosed, now onto my own personal findings. Assembly The Doro C300 Pro V2 came in two large boxes (1) (2), and everything was packed very well, protecting the different parts of the chair. In the box, there is a folded sheet that explains the 12 steps to assemble it; they are: Remove the bottom cover on the aluminum base; Insert the five legs into the aluminum base and use ten screws to fasten them; Insert the castors into the legs; Replace the bottom cover on the bottom of the aluminum base; Place the Class 4 Hydraulics gas cylinder into the aluminum base; Screw the bottom part of the arm rests, taking care of the orientation using two screws on each side; Use three torx screws to fasten the footrest to the bottom of the seat; Fasten the backrest to the seat using four torx bolts; Fasten the armrests to the backrest using four Torx bolts (two on each side), taking care to note the orientation; Place the chair onto the Class 4 Hydraulics gas cylinder; Insert the headrest into the top of the backrest; Use two torx screws to fasten the headrest to the backrest. There's also an online guide you can refer to. Carefully unpacking the two boxes took around 15 minutes because almost everything is wrapped in plastic and protective foam; the chair assembly itself took around an hour. I say in the above assembly steps to take note of the orientation, because it's not obvious which way around the bottom portion of the armrests go, and although there is an L and R on the bottom of the armrests, it also wasn't clear from the instructions which was actually left or right, facing the chair, or in the seated down orientation? Anyway, I ended up putting the bottom portions on the wrong sides, and after securing one of the armrests, I discovered that although it was on the correct side, the armrest base could rotate a full 360°, but not when bolted to the chair, so I had to remove it, rotate it, and then bolt it back on. Truly an Ikea experience! Also, to complicate things further, although all the parts are labeled from A to X (yes, that's 24 parts) unhelpfully, these letters do not appear on the parts themselves or the package with the bolts, screws, and washers. There's also a pair of protective gloves in the box, but I think they were made for much smaller hands than I have. Even my friend, who is 5.1, had difficulty putting them on. Once assembled, I needed to sit down. Anyway, as I said, it looks quite similar to my Herman Miller. And here is the back of it. If you look at the product page and on Amazon, it seems like a lot of thought has gone into the chair itself and what it's capable of, but there is no mention at all about the castors, and this is an area where I think the chair trips up quite quickly. I found it difficult to move the chair in any direction. I asked a friend who came to visit me earlier this week to test my findings, and she said that the wheels were "no good," so it definitely isn't just me. I am 6'2 myself and a big guy, I work from home and gained a few pounds from mostly staying in and the hell away from other people. However, the Doro C300 Pro V2 is rated for up to 150kg (330lbs), which in my case is used well within its max rating. Ergonomics The number of adjustments you can make, right up to setting it in nap mode — which I haven't fully tested yet — is what you'd expect from a premium chair. Yes, you can go up and down (max 7.5 cm adjustment), rock back and forth (with tilt adjustment), and lock the chair between three stages of 105°, 120°, 135°, which is not quite as flat as the AndaSeat I tested at 160°. Some thought has also gone into the "8D" armrests, too, which are cushioned but quite firm; you'll only know it if you press hard into the PU-covered tops, which give about half a centimeter, but it's enough to ensure your skin won't get awkwardly stuck to it in warmer (or sweatier) conditions. It almost feels like plastic and is very easy to keep clean. However, the armrest positions move far too easily, and I am not sure what that "elbow" function is. Maybe it is good for a short person with short arms, anyway, I never used it and kept it flat at all times. There are eight levels of adjustment for the armrests, they are: backwards, forwards, swing left/right, height up and down, tilt, and 360° rotation, which can be handy for desk clearance. As I said, the armrest pads shift far too easily, which could give off an ergonomic vibe, but who wants the armrest sliding when you are shifting weight? The height adjustability does lock into place when lifting and adjusting. Comfort This is ultimately what it boils down to at the end of the day, right? Quite a lot of reviews praise the comfort of this chair, and I don't disagree that the mesh seating is quite comfortable. I am used to the material from my daily Herman Miller. However, the backrest cannot be locked into place, and this is actually a feature; as you shift or recline yourself on the chair, the backrest moves with your body. It took some getting used to. The lumbar gives ample support, but I would have preferred an adjustable one built into the seat base, as this causes the backrest to move up and down at will. Again, as with my previous chair review, this chair is also rated for tall people, but nowhere in the product documentation does it say how tall. Being 6'2 myself, I'm happy to say that the backrest is tall and wide enough, and thought has been given to being able to adjust the neck rest, but as others have mentioned in their reviews, people as tall as 6.2ft is about the limit for the neckrest. Conclusion What I didn't like The footrest is rated for 15kg (33 lbs), which to me seems a bit light, and after looking online, it seems like a chair footrest for adults must be at least twice that rating. In all honesty, they are just hollow metal tubes, so it is not recommended to let a kid sit on them. I also feel like it doesn't really go out far enough for my height, so that kind of puts the dampener on me being able to use it regularly. I'll just have to continue to use my subwoofer as a footrest! I do not like the armrests being able to shift around as easily as they can, and they are a little too forward-positioned in the chair to comfortably sit close to my desk, because even in the lowest height position, they don't allow me to go under the desk like is possible with my Herman Miller. I also feel like this chair could have been delivered partially constructed, especially the armrests on the seat, and why the aluminum base wasn't already pre-constructed (without the castors) is baffling, considering it would have fit in one of the two boxes that way. The instructions also need to be clearer. On the pamphlet, there's an A to X listing (which is also used in the steps), but none of the physical parts use this lettering system! What I did like I'll be honest, I haven't used it for very long, just one week, and seating comfort is subjective after all! Any spills wiped straight off it, the stitching, and the lines look great, not a fray to be seen or stitch out of place. It looks kind of cool, too. My favorite feature of these seats is the nap mode. While you're not lying completely flat, it leans far back enough to make you easily doze off after a heavy gaming or working session. Overall, this chair offers plenty of comfort features. The MSRP does vary quite a bit depending on the region, at £549.99 in the UK, and €580 in Europe, and $599 before tax in the U.S. However, shipping is free, which is a bonus for such a heavy item. Is it worth it, though? At three years' warranty, I think it's a decent deal. Another firm out of Germany sent me a free replacement hydraulic gas spring for a chair that failed after almost four years, so it was well outside its two-year warranty. My advice is to always try, as you might have the same luck I did. If I could fault it at all, it would be the constant shifting of the armrests and backrest. Where to buy Although the footrest variant normally costs $539.99, it has been discounted to $469.99 on the official website in Black or White. In fact, the non-footrest variant is only $40 cheaper. On Amazon, it currently costs more at $499.99 links below. Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 for $469.99 (official website) Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 for $499.99 at Amazon US SIHOO provided a free sample without any review or pre-approval. Good to know This Amazon link is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      207
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      macoman
      62
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!