Christ, that is ridiculous. I think it broke my stupidity meter, in fact. It reminds me of a conversation I had with my (self-described) hippie uncle a few months ago: He said that video games should be banned because they involve 'symbolic murder' and this encourages children to commit acts of real violence. I held my tongue because I was pretty sure that I wouldn't be able to avoid yelling if we got into that subject, but given that he's made his career as an actor and singer I seriously considered suggesting that plays and operas should be banned since those involve a form of 'symbolic murder' that will seem more real to an individual than any 'murder' in a virtual world.
I honestly think that people that suggest that we should ban video games -- or what the hell ever -- because that will theoretically reduce violence don't understand what that means. In the US, at least, bans are enforced by sending police to shoot up peoples' houses if they're suspected of possessing something banned. (Say, marijjuana.) I love the logic that says banning X *might* reduce violence, therefore we should order police to bring in anyone possessing it dead or alive thereby guaranteeing additional violence.
EDIT: On a lighter note, the term 'alleged analyst' is awesome.