question closed for vague stated reasons

TLDR: I don't see the reasons as vague at all.

The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician.

So, how did we get here?

Let's start out with a possible question on this current event (another attempt on Trump's life):

Q: Why is it so difficult for the Secret Service to protect politicians?

OK, now we have a non-leading question that is asking why we are seeing a repeat attempt to kill a high profile candidate.

You may get any amount of answers, some of which could mention gun availability. People can vote based on how objective, accurate and well-sourced those answers are.

or

Q: Are political figures more at risk nowadays?

Well, that's likely to be more opinion-based. But sometimes you see answers bringing in historical perspectives that by late 19th/early 20th century standards, US political polarization is not that exceptional.

Yes, you could see someone mentioning guns. Or demonization (by the left? by the right?). But they would not would have been led there by the question itself.

And again, people would on the answers based on how objective, accurate and well-sourced ... lada lada lada... those answers are. And their own prejudices.

But that wasn't your question, was it?

Q: Has right-wing politics on guns made it more or less impossible to reliably protect public figures?

is what you asked.

Which you then went on to qualify with:

bump stocks that allow a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock to fire between 400 and 800 rounds per minute, similar to the rate of fire of a machine gun.

I agree with you: bump stocks suck. But they are also utterly irrelevant to sniping at someone from far away. Or for hunting for that matter. You only seem to have brought them in as a convenient strawman because they are such a stupid idea.

But let's give that a pass, pretend you didn't talk about "bump stocks" at all, and were instead talking about "sniper rifles".

Q: Have right-wing political allowances on sniper rifles made it more or less impossible to reliably protect public figures?

Well, OK, sniper rifles could be seen as a problem in this context. Now in 2024, let's pretend we have 2 possible situations:

1) Let's say sniper rifles have just been legalized due to right wing pressure.

Yes, now, we are getting there, there is a causal relationship between the assassination attempt and right wing policies.

Good question.

2) Let's say right wingers have resisted attempts to restrict sniper rifles

Well, and this is kind of the situation here, the US has been on the path of loose gun ownership for decades and decades, so it's hard to pin it all on recent right wing political positions.

But, OK, still somewhat of a justified question.

But do we need a sniper rifle, or any exotic firearm, in the first place?

We do not. Anything that would be appropriate for deer hunting would do the job quite well. Many, many, countries allow for that. In Canada we had a big kerfuffle about registering long guns and while there is an understandable historical motivation for that, long guns are not typically what many gun crimes are committed with.

Handguns are most often the type of firearm used in crime According to the Victim Survey (NCVS), 25% of the victims of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault in 1993 faced an offender armed with a handgun. Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns.

(Yes, those are old stats. Gotta remember though many restrictions have been placed on conducting gun-related studies...)

So a reasonable (when compared to many other countries) gun control regime in the US would still leave you with the risk of people wanting to shoot at politicians they hate.

And who almost got shot at this time? And did, last time?

If say Kamala Harris had been the target, it would still be pushy but somewhat understandable to blame right wingers.

But it wasn't. It was Trump. It's just bizarre to turn around and try to blame right wingers for an attempt on Trump.

(This is not coming from me being a Trump fan).

Just in case we missed your motivations in asking the Q...

"secret Service" is not a genie you invoke to protect what you want to protect. It is a system of armed personnel, surveillance. threat assessment etc. the sacredness of unlimited gun availability to private citizens advocated by Republicans has made the "secret service" impotent -@ItalianPhilosopher Although white males are the overwhelming source of assassination threats, white males moving around carrying high-powered rifles are considered a-ok by most people. – S K

Honestly, this site has closed many questions that start out lamenting how misunderstood and persecuted white males are before pushing some viewpoint on that basis. Good. That doesn't mean we really need to allow the reverse.

One last thing to consider.

Questions about any subject can be, wrongly or correctly, badly received by the community. But not all subjects are equal and some are just contentious by nature, dividing the community into supporters and opposers.

To name only a few of those (there are others): climate change, LGBTQ concerns and, of course, gun control. It can be challenging to ask questions about them without being accused of being pushy. Using traumatic current events to "score points" on these has a high risk of being extremely badly perceived.

I didn't vote to close, and I think closing as a push question is inappropriate (although I seem to see less "push" in questions than most people).

However, your question is still inappropriate for the site. That's because, after expository paragraphs, your question is:

If private citizens can temporarily create a warzone anywhere in America - how can any public figure be reliably protected?

I can see two kinds of answers to this question. The first is "therefore private citizens should not be able to create a warzone anywhere in America". But this answer is fundamentally opinion-based (it uses the phrase "should not be able to"), which makes it ill-suited for this site.

The other kind of answer is "given that private citizens are able to create a warzone anywhere in America, here's how security services can still protect public figures". If this is the kind of answer you're looking for, then it would not be opinion-based, but it would also not be a politics question. (The answer is also Googleable.)

Finally when you write:

The question can be given objective answers - By linking assassination attempt statistics to loose gun laws pushed by right wing politicians. John R Lott makes a living doing just that, from the other end - attacking tight gun control laws.

This suggests that your desired answer is neither of the above, in which case your question is unclear, and it should have been phrased as "do loose gun laws lead to more assassination attempts?" or similar.