Zero tolerance or zero sense? Kids' suspensions over imaginary weapons renew debate

[bossy22]

7. in general, Zero sense

but as I always believe, depends on the situation.

I ponder this sometimes-
are there unintended consequences of trying to get rid of anything that resembles "aggressive/violent" behavior? Lets be honest, Young kids, especially young boys, are inherently aggressive (like most social mammals). They play cops and robbers, wrestle, chase each other with plastic swords etc.... For generations these things have been nothing more than "kids being kids". But as of recent (i'm talking in the last 20 years) such things have become "taboo" and society as a whole tends to take the view that any form of aggression/violence, even if there is no malice involved, must not be tolerated. My question is, is this possibly setting these kids up for future aggressive/violene issues? By not letting them learn how to control these urges and release them properly are we essentially telling them to just "bottle it up"- to the point that when these kids become teenagers, they really have no way of dealing with these urges/feelings. In essence, is the same problem with abstinence only sex-education true for zero tolerance policies like these? I'm not a psychologist but I think its an interesting question