Perhaps I've misinterpreted, but I think the premise of the thread was to say that the difference between a traditional stock and a pistol grip style are negligible enough as to make it absurd for the gun control crowd to say rifle x with a traditional stock is fine, but the same or similar rifle with a pistol grip is inherently more dangerous and should be banned.simply put, the premise of this thread is that pistol grips are not important because they do nothing and serve no purpose, and therefore the gun banner's attempts to regulate them are nonsense.
and yet, the fact is that nearly every assault rifle on the planet has a pistol grip.
given an opportunity to engage our brains for a few minutes to ponder why, when given a choice of any weapon design in the world, nearly every military in the world chose pistol grips... what did we do? of course, assume the other side is wrong and take some silly tangent about an utterly meaningless semantic debate.
why would you assume pistol grips don't make a difference?
I don't think it was a comment on a pistol grip's utility or lack thereof.