Yes and no. This is a circular argument that rears its head on a regular basis, and there is ultimately nothing scientific to prove people get numbed to violent films (I've been over this subject for over thirty years).

There is an increase in violent television simply because there are far more streaming platforms and whatnot, so the data is misleading. US TV seems slightly behind the UK, as we did away with any form of TV censorship in the 1990s, whereas I understand films still get censored for swearing and whatnot on public broadcasters in the US. So it also depends whether the data is for the US or elsewhere.

Again, there are a lot of complicating factors. For me personally, I am anti-censorship but I am not necessarily pro-gratuitous violence. I tend to be more against unnecessary brutality in silly action films than against contextually justified depictions of gore in realistic war scenarios. Indeed, I'd argue not showing graphic violence in such dramas is irresponsible. But that doesn't mean I'd ever argue for the banning or censoring of silly violent action films. Just that I personally find them distasteful at times.

Horror is different, because sometimes horror depends on visceral gore to make a point, sometimes satirically (zombie films, or most recently The Substance). I think the idea that horror viewers are "desensitised" is fundamentally flawed, and here's why (link number one):

Are Horror Fans Desensitised? by Simon Dillon | Writers’ Blokke (medium.com)