rajb123 said:
There is "zero" collelation between video cartoons depicting guns and the real thing. This decision was purely a 1st Amendment issue and it had NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment that gives Americans the right to own guns.
On the contrary, I am inclined to believe that video games do in fact make a person more comfortable with a course of action they have repeatedly simulated.
The military has studied this before.
One of the primary things they did was create simulations where a person repeatedly makes the decision to fire at what represents a human being.
Video game type training simulations are one way they have done this.
By simulating continually making the decision to shoot a human being ( along with other actions) individuals would become more accustomed to following that course of action, even when presented with the real thing.
Of course today the military no longer needs to focus on that training, most of the current generation of soldiers grew up playing first person shooter games.
The current generation of soldiers will shoot the enemy almost every time, there is less hesitancy than almost any time in history.
It is true that firing real guns and firing pretend weapons in a game does not translate into any form of firearms proficiency. The muscle memory is nothing alike, and there is no real muzzle blast, recoil, and other stimuli in shooting an actual firearm. And most of the games don't even have anywhere near realistic ballistics.
No video games don't make a person a better physical shooter.
What they do is make a person more comfortable with putting a person in their sights and pulling the trigger.
This has been of tremendous benefit to the military.
Now don't get me wrong, video games do not overcome a person's morals. It is still the individual and their values and decisions that determine when they make a choice to shoot another human being. Violent games or simulations do not make a good person a bad person.
What violent simulation does is make the mental steps required a more fluid process, something that has been practiced before.
In times past they used to have to dehumanize the enemy in propaganda to get more people comfortable with killing them. They would think of them as horrible people, often racism was exploited when the two sides were of different general ethnicity. You can find such examples expressed in caricatures of past wars.
But today most of those requirements are absent. You tell a soldier who the bad guy is and they will readily shoot them.
I also think a lot of the popular shooter games children grow up playing a soldier in are good for military recruiters. Kids who grow up playing such games are more likely to join the military.
It may be nothing like reality, but they are already in the military by the time they know that first hand. Banning such games would probably have a long term corresponding drop in military recruitment.
Prior generations had children growing up shooting, boyscouts, and more outdoor activities and things that could lead to a desire for a military career.
Today half the population of children are fat sitting at home in a more urban environment, and video games are important for exposing them to things that may lead to an interest in the military.
Important when you are dependent on a voluntary military force, and the military arm for much of the world.
). 
