No, there's not really any support for it in the US either. Reactionaries openly fantasize about it a lot, but when it comes down to it it's mostly chest-beating. And isolated acts of violence are generally unproductive as you said. Trotsky (and others, but he put it especially succinctly) argued this:

The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen.

At the same time I don't think a socialist should write off political violence itself, nor pretend that they do. And if they are against it in principle, but go around making lists of random people who "get the bullet" or whatever anyway -- which is stupid regardless of whether they're serious, tbh, but w/e -- (a) it comes off more like LARPing than just doing memes, (b) I don't think they're in a position to feign shock or concern over the violent posturing of the right per se, and (c) I don't think they can blame civility nerds for noticing that "both sides" seem to deliberately cultivate plausible deniability surrounding calls for violence.