Suppose:

In Time A, there were fewer singular murders but more singular, non-lethal assaults occurring daily.

In Time B, there were more singular murders but fewer singular, non-lethal assaults occurring daily.

In Scenario #1, both Time A and B have the same number of total violent incidents occurring daily.

In Scenario #2, Time A has more total violent incidents than Time B occurring daily.

In Scenario #1, claiming that either Time A or B is more violent or peaceful than the other requires one to weight murders and non-lethal assaults differently, which requires one to value these two differently by some amount. Often, murder will by some degree be defined as a more severely violent act than non-lethal assault and that is all that is required to decide this case.

In Scenario #2, claiming that either Time A or B is more or peaceful than the other requires one to precisely define the values of murders and non-lethal assaults to show which time is more violent.

Say 1 murder = 2 non-lethal assaults

If Time A has 2,500 singular murders and 0 singular, non-lethal assaults daily, and Time B has 0 singular murders and 4,999 singular, non-lethal assaults daily, then Time A will be defined as more violent than Time B under this definition.

But there's a good argument to be made that having 2,499 more incidents of violence in Time B makes it more violent than Time A. Debate then becomes a matter of valuing death over incidents of violence, extended pain, suffering, etc. and this is all ignoring how to factor in complex incidents such as single perpetrators of mass murders, long term state sanctioned violence, domestic abuse, etc. into these equations which will rely on heaps of value judgements upon value judgements to weight things properly.