....while this is true technically.
Your post is also misleading in a sense.
The debate is generally not if a religion has violent people (which to every person with an inkling of understanding knows this obviously), but whether the religion sanctions it in its scripture.
Which Buddhism as preached by sakyamuni never did in its original form.
This is why it is generally held in much higher regard by people that are critical of religion in a logical sense than the people of the book, because those Buddhists are going against every single thing ever spouted by the founder of the religion, with no loopholes that can used to justify evil.
Can't say the same about the 3 abrahamic religions in any sense.