[WS:] Neither do I. I think that thrill is the drive behind many unrelated behaviors, such as shooting, playing sports or video games, or breaking the law.
As to your argument about desensitization through habituation - I am not sure how much of a factor it is. The military and the law enforcement get routinely desensitized, yet most of them they do not go around shooting people. Katz argues that criminals get desensitized through a different process - by employing a narrative that portrays their victims as subhuman or evil - which does not seem much to do with habituation. One can also argue that people can get desensitized by playing violent video games or watching violent movies - but there does not seem to be much evidence of that connection. Jordan et al. may also counter that desensitization may lead to greater self-control in dangerous situation and thus lower likelihood of shooting someone when the situation does not warrant it.
My objections come from different, non-utilitarian considerations. One is political - pro-gun people tend to be my political adversaries (Republicans, conservative white rural and suburban males, etc.) so I naturally take opposite positions on issues that they cherish. The other one is aesthetic - I have a strong aversion to the manifestations of machismo - and guns are a big part of macho imagery.
For these two reasons alone, if a referendum were held on a gun ban or control I would probably vote in favor - just to spite my political adversaries and deflate the egos of macho men. I have, however, no illusion that such a ban would have any significant effect on the amount of violence. At best, it may prevent a few deaths - which in itself is worthy since I see no benefit at all from private gun ownership - but otherwise it is a diversion from the actual causes of violence.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."