AH! Now we see what I suggested would happen. This is a combination of fallacies, mostly in the form of:
First, a No True Scotsman in that it takes the generalizations I provided then says they prove nothing while not providing any counter examples.
Next, it amounts to Moving the Goalposts. That is, no matter the amount of evidence provided, more specificity is called for or the sources are claimed unreliable.
Then there's, the Continuum Fallacy that argues because the provided proof isn't specific enough it is to be rejected out-of-hand without counter proof or counter argument.
Proof was offered and given. If the proof is insufficient isn't sufficient to simply dismiss it without offering counterproof. Right now, the demand by Tacomaman is a demand for such a specific set of data that it cannot be met. This too leads to a future logical fallacy against him where he's likely to demand Proof of a Negative. That is, when sufficient proof to meet his unreasonable standard is not met he will say the equivalent of "Ah ha! You can't prove what you said, and your partial proofs, and alternative proofs are therefore invalid!"
Of course, no proof countering what was offered will be forthcoming. That is Tacomaman won't for a second offer proof that the Right committed more violent acts than the Left offering that to his own standard of proof.
Basically, he's trying to shut down the discussion by the above logical fallacies rather than actually respond to it.