I'd also say that it tends to be the oppressed who resort to violence first because it's there only option. For example, it could be argued the Black Panthers movement required some level of "violence" to make a point. If a group is resorting to violence it tends not to be because they enjoy violence, but because they feel they have no other option. I'm not trying to draw any moral comparisons here, just want to point out that you don't need to be violent when the state and ruling class are on your side. There's simply no need when the state (or in this case, private corporations) will restrict your opponent's freedoms for you.

It doesn't get as much publicity so few know about it. That's the problem with today's bias, and muting one side.