BUSAN, South Korea: Another 50 days or so to go till the United States presidential election and already, for the second time this year on Sunday (Sep 15), it appears that someone tried to assassinate Donald Trump.

The would-be gunman Ryan Wesley Routh, as identified by American media, was waiting for the former president at his Florida golf course and appears to have intended to shoot him through the fence. Trump’s bodyguard detail – the Secret Service – engaged the suspect, who fled and was later arrested.

This comes barely two months after a shooter in Pennsylvania fired at Trump on Jul 13, just missing his head. That man was killed on the spot by the Secret Service.

Together, these shootings raise questions about political violence in America, particularly in the Trump era. Since his entrance into US politics nine years ago, Trump has trafficked in divisive themes and hinted routinely at political violence in a way no major candidate has since the 19th century.  

While this attempt, like the last one, will generate brief, intense speculation on violence in US politics, it is unlikely to alter the presidential race.

PROBLEM OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE OR A LOT OF GUNS?

For decades, the US has suffered from mass shootings at work and school, often carried out by shooters with disturbing social media footprints but no clear political beliefs. The shootings seem, instead, like bids for notoriety.

This profile fits both would-be Trump shooters. Routh had multiple altercations with the law beforehand, voted for Trump in 2016, and his social media suggests support for an eclectic array of politicians with no clear ideological direction.

Thankfully, then, neither shooting has been “blue on red” violence; that is, neither shooter was a committed Democrat or liberal seeking to attack American conservatism for ideological reasons.

These events appear more like America’s daily experience with random gun violence – over 40,000 Americans die every year from gunfire – than a catalyst of political violence.

Today, there are more legal guns in the US than there are Americans. This creates obvious opportunities for mass civilian violence which do not exist in most developed countries.

Related:Snap Insight: Trump assassination attempt may have just won him the US presidential election Commentary: Will Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris actually matter when it comes to votes? A BOILING POINT

There is no reason to believe that the US has more mentally disturbed people than any other first-world society.

Instead, the most likely explanation for its shooting epidemic is the easy access its unhappy citizens have to guns. The country seems to have accepted – rather shockingly – mass shootings as the cost of widespread gun ownership.

But Trump’s threat-filled rhetoric certainly worsens the problem.

He routinely uses inflammatory and apocalyptic language to describe the election, such as predicting a “bloodbath” if he loses and raising concerns by promising retribution on political rivals if he wins. This creates a febrile environment in the country, suggesting a boiling point in which violence might be imminent or necessary.

And while he had dialled down the rhetoric in the aftermath of the July attack – even calling for unity at one point – he has quickly slipped back to more familiar ways. In recent weeks, his tone has changed, stoking suspicions about the attempted assassination.

He feeds the hysteria and dislocation which is the social background for America’s epidemic of random, mass shootings. The fear is also that more in his base may feel legitimate in tipping over into political violence.

To prevent this, Republicans and Democrats must avoid politicising the assassination attempts. Even if they do, there is no reason to think that Trump will.

Robert Kelly (@Robert_E_Kelly) is a professor of political science at Pusan National University.bj88

• Trump
• bj88
• Snap
• Latest
• Insight