Which was exactly my point - you ban these things because the potential harm outweighs the benefit gained by allowing it.
The arguments against endorsing violent video games seem to me a factual debate - do they cause harm? There is evidence that they do: the question is how much harm - is it to all, or just those with an existing propensity for violence?
The evidence is similar to the 'cigarettes cause cancer' debate: the effects are only seen in the long term, and at this stage the evidence is anecdotal but not proven. If signs of harm continue to show in 10 years I am all for banning the games. But by then if the harm as bad as suggested, wouldn't it have been easier to ban them in the first place?
-1 Flamebait? Really?