Yes, there's no need to remove the feature; I just humbly suggest that two-handed firing is usually more trouble than help. Even if a sidearm were truly one-hand-only operated, it's just not accurate to shoot them together. Yes, you could shoot two at once, and a decent shooter could hit a target, but really, even an expert shooter wouldn't. Yes, this game has close-quarters combat, but most police shootouts occur within 7 meters. That's right, 7 meters. Close enough to qualify as close combat? Yet no police officer wields two weapons simultaneously, because it's already hard enough to win close-quarters shootouts with the accuracy bonus of a single, eye-level aimed sidearm in the hands of a well-trained police officer (I've never heard of special forces dual-wielding sidearms, either. I'm no expert on special forces, but can anyone substantiate otherwise?). After all, it's not who fires the most shots, but rather who brings rounds on target the quickest. One well-placed shot to the centre of body mass or between the eyes is going to win over a hail of bullets roughly on target (if even that), especially against enemies who are heavily armored.
The only application I think think of for wielding dual pistols is when no larger weapons (or ammo) are available, and one needs to lay down cover fire at short range. Otherwise, a single rifle in infinitely superior to dual pistols. More power, and just WAY more accuracy.
Of course, we're forgetting this: how many truly ambidextrous shooters are there out there? Should special forces operators spend all their time honing their dual-pistol-wielding skills just in case? Most shooters are side-biased. I'm a right-hand shooter. Could I do it left-side? Maybe. Do it well, in the stress of close-quarters combat? I seriously doubt it. No, actually, I know I couldn't.