[Norm Lenhart]

My point was that when a child ‘imagines’ he is playing soldier at war, he imagines the bombs, the smoke, the fire, the blood...all of it. Since the imagination is every bit, even more powerful than an actual visual representation of violence, a boy playing army is getting every bit of the mental ‘effect’ and more than a video game/movie or book will give him.

So should we stop boys from playing army/cowboys and indians/cops and robbers too?

That’s what I was getting at. Since generations of boys have played at war games without traumatizing themselves into fits of murder, I fail to see/nor is there a shred of proof to be had that video games, a less mentally impressional form of input than one’s own imagination, will be a problem.

[LearsFool]

My point was that when a child ‘imagines’ he is playing soldier at war, he imagines the bombs, the smoke, the fire, the blood...all of it.

Children are not harmed by things they freely imagine. (Though they might be harmed by things that spring into their imaginations due to exposure to the wrong stuff.)

This is why, among books, movies, and video games, books are the most harmless. They require imagining, but it's completely at the reader's discretion. (Playing army with toy guns ranks about equal with books.) The same cannot be said for movies nor video games.

Since generations of boys have played at war games without traumatizing themselves into fits of murder, I fail to see/nor is there a shred of proof to be had that video games, a less mentally impressional form of input than one’s own imagination, will be a problem.

That's nothing but a straw man. If you're only concerned about preventing children from being traumatized into fits of murder, your concern for children is small indeed.