The point in essence, of both the articles was that video games are powerful teaching tools. In the first article the authors made the argument that video games train the people to kill people. While people might gain skills, such as shooting or hand eye coordination from playing these games i don’t think that there is a proven causal relationship between playing video games and going out and shooting people.
I as a player of these games i don’t feel any desire to kill other people. The games might teach some skills that aid in the killing of other people but they certainly don’t prepare people to kill other people mentally and barely physically.
The other article is on the moral implication of simulating historical events in games. I think the controversy comes from the fact that people really don’t talk about non controversial events that are simulated. Columbine and the JFK assassination are things that people consider bad things and playing as the person who commits these events is very controversial. The same argument is implicit in these arguments that playing games are more likely to commit these these actions. People don’t like to think these things because they already have a narrative of these events and playing them out can change how they are perceived.