You annihilate yourself by strictly adhering to pacifism. The harsh reality is that, yes, you sometimes have to murder people to protect yourself and the values of an enlightened society, particularly one that condemns murder, because such structures are the most prone to be attacked by people that do not share your values, and such people will always exist. In fact, when defending a free society from the loss of said freedom, murder can be the most moral option there is.
However, I want to conclude this comment by saying that the assassination attempt on Trump may not (yet) be warranted, particularly because I do not believe that the Republicans have the actual will and political momentum to establish a dictatorship post-election. And it is particularly distressing that this incident caused the death of a wholly innocent bystander.
Edit: changed wording from “is the most moral option” to “can be the most moral option”
You do not have to fight me, I principally believe in the same values as you (at least I think so, from what little I know about you). It is true that “condoning murder as political expression” is a slippery slope and kind of a “leopards eating people’s faces” situation, but if you do not reserve the act of killing as an emergency option, you and your values will eventually disappear. This is the reason why every meaningful nation still has a military, and why many European democracies are again investing billions into armaments after decades of demilitarisation. Just shouting at people while they kill you will make sure that they can successfully kill you.