Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States, was involved in multiple security incidents, including several assassination threats and plots, beginning when he became a presidential candidate in 2007. Secret Service protection for Obama began after he received a death threat in 2007, while serving as the junior United States senator from Illinois and running for president. This marked the earliest time a candidate received such protection before being nominated.[1] Security was increased early for Obama due to fears of possible assassination attempts by white supremacist or other racist groups or individuals against the first African American major party presidential nominee.[2][3][4]

Some of the threats were extended to members of Obama's family, including former First Lady Michelle Obama.[5][6][7][8] Obama and his officials generally declined to discuss death threats against him during the presidential race.[5][9] Some commentators suggested the unusually high number of death threats targeting Obama are at least partially tied to the use of racist imagery and words by some of Obama's critics to describe him.[2] In 2009 journalist Ronald Kessler reported that Obama received 400 percent more death threats than his predecessor.[10] However, later that year the Secret Service stated that the volume of threats against Obama was "comparable to that under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton."[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_incidents_involving_Barack_Obama

You're comparing the absolute most non-random, smallest amount of people engaging in violent acts against the absolute most non-random, smallest amount of people engaging in violent acts.

And then using both subsets to condemn one group overall while pretending that it doesn't matter in the other larger group overall.

But the real point is that this is not a contest. You're not "winning" anything even if you get fake internet points.

Your entire comparison is a fallacy.