Not intentionally, mind you; but still.

The editorial board of the Dallas Morning News published an opinion piece on why those nasty pistol braces need to be banned. Their… reasoning stops short of informed rationality. For instance:

There’s no difference between the business end of a rifle and a handgun of the same caliber.

Perhaps they’d consider changing that to “cartridge” instead of “caliber.” Otherwise — and ignoring the effect of barrel length on ballistics — they’re saying that a little .22LR revolver is the same as a AR-pattern rifle chambered for 5.56 NATO. They’re both .22 caliber, after all.

But this one…

But shorter barrels make guns less accurate and easier to conceal. They also make them easier to maneuver in crowded places, which may be why shooters in at least two mass murders — at a grocery store in Boulder in 2021, and a busy street in Dayton in 2019 — used handgun braces.

This first part is a gross over-simplification. Assuming either pistol or rifle has enough barrel length for the bullet to spin stabilize, and not so much length as to sap energy through friction, inherent accuracy isn’t that different. If one is using iron sights, the difference in sight radius can make longer barrel eaiser to fire accurately; but that’s an issue with the shooter, not the firearm.

The second part, regarding concealability and maneuverability is hilarious.

Take a pistol, say an AR-pattern pistol with a ten inch barrel. Now add a stabilizing brace to it — making it longer — and now it’s more concealable?

Since the board is concerned with accuracy, you might even think they’s approve of a braced pistol, said brace making it easier for the shooter to fire accurately.

But do you know what is even more concealable, and “maneuverable in crowded spaces,” than a short-barrel rifle or a braced pistol? Basically any conventional unbraced handgun in the world. Could that be why those are used in the vast majority of shootings, mass or otherwise?