The problem with violent protests is that it is hardly ever the government or their agents that suffer.
It's private citizens, private property, private businesses that suffer.
People come to harm, property is damaged or destroyed, businesses both cannot do business and therefore lose revenue, or their shops and goods are also damaged or destroyed.
The government agents of force (police, nat'l guard) are very rarely harmed, with their riot shields to block incoming projectiles, tear gas to keep people away, sound-blasting machines to keep people away, the sheer intimidation of an MRAP with a huge gun on the top of it, etc.
Government buildings hardly ever are damaged or destroyed. For some reason, violent protestors love to smash car windows, business windows, throw molotov cocktails on the roof of a McDonalds...but never City Hall. Never the local IRS office. Never the local police department.
(A skeptic would say this is because the protestors can't immediately be rewarded from the government buildings the same way they can from, say, a big-screen tv store or a jewelry store.)
Even if you had violent protestors who were dedicated to the idea of harming only government property, those people would soon be joined by hordes of opportunists who would bring violence to the streets simply to cause panic and loot. Once that happens, any sympathy the protest may have had with the general public will be lost, and the entire thing will be viewed as simply a reason to loot.
(Again, skeptics would note that many protests have been waylaid in this fashion by people who were hired to cause trouble and loot. Agent provocateurs.)
Keep in mind, I'm not saying violence is never the answer. I'm simply wondering how you would keep it focused on the government and its agents, and keep out the bad actors.
In the short term that is certianly true. However, if the protests are successful and bring about change to bad policies then it is the citizens, property and businesses that benefit from a more just and productive society over the longer term. The premise of the OP is that violent resistance or at least peaceful resistance backed by a credible threat of violence is 100x more effective in bringing about positive social change. I don't know if history backs up that claim, but if it does then the argument is sound.