I agree, and I just want to add a few things.

The strategy of nonviolent resistance (compared to violent resistance) has some empirical evidence to support it. (See the work by Erica Chenoweth.) So like you've said, it's actually a pragmatic strategy and not just something used by naive bleeding hearts who believe violence is wrong in principle. That said, there is a surrounding context that makes nonviolent resistance work (compared to violent resistance) and without those reasons being true...

One big reason is the presence of a relatively free media. Nonviolent resistance is about convincing more and more members of the public that the status quo is doing something bad by forcing them to witness what agents of the status quo will do. It's hard to convince the public of this if they never witness the resistance and the reaction to it. This is why it's important to build and maintain a free media. It's also why today's authoritarian states have become experts in locking down the internet as soon as a protest begins.

Another reason is that nonviolent resistance is physically and emotionally easier to take part in, and therefore a larger and more diverse group will take part in it. As Erica Chenoweth points out, if your resistance group requires you to leave your family, live in the mountains and fire a weapon...you're going to struggle to recruit outside of young single men. But this fact is known and exploited by many police and security forces the world over. That's the reason for the bizarre and seemingly unnecessary sexualised violence against protesters: if you make women feel unsafe to protest, fewer women will show up for the protest. If the protest becomes disproportionately young men over time, it will become less sympathetic.

Anyway, just adding some food for thought.