Violent vs peaceful protest

I have been stuck between sides on this subject of using violence of peace to promote social change. Both sides have worked and failed dramatically, each has pros and cons and there are some cases that I believe ended successfully because of the combination of the two. As impossible as this argument is I have however come to a conclusion. Violence only leads to more violence and that cycle is harder to stop then any peaceful protest. I chose peace because it should always be the first choice anyway, and I have read a few examples where the gravity of the method is greater than any violent act. In 1989 Czechoslovakia formed the velvet revolution against the communist government. In this example the government was crippled, the people were they biggest resource and without them they had no choice but to submit. If the people had acted violently the government could have easily retaliated with more violence. A very similar situation happened in 2005 in Ukraine (the Orange revolution). I feel this method should always be the first option. Currently there is a situation in Quebec regarding school tuition. Student groups are rebelling violently trying to reduce tuition cost. I do not completely disagree with their choice because it worked in another tuition issue in London and of course it is too late to un do what they have done. But when I think about the velvet revolution I feel peaceful protest could have been more effective. Perhaps for example they put their riot energy into a strike, affecting the schools income until they had to choice but to submit. In and social action the people collectively are more powerful than any gun or riot. I will leave you however with the fact that if a country of group is under oppression, yes they just start with peace but equality and justice should be the only outcome.        

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" – JFK