You really need to see both sides of the coin before arguing for one side or the other. I've rarely employed violence to obtain what I wanted, and I also have to add that most of the time it didn't provide me with anything other than momentary satisfaction. But we're not talking violence on a personal level, aye? We're talking violence on a large scale, the violence that states employ in order to obtain what they want.
I can't assume to know what you've been through in life, but I have had the privilege of interacting recently with a Syrian refugee family that managed to get relocated in Copenhagen through a project with Amnesty International. Seeing little children and grown men crying together of either happiness or sadness, crying because they got away from the violence, rape and murder, crying because they lost their homes; it's moving, in a disturbing way. Ask them if violence is the answer, ask the people who are actually oppressed by this victorious violence. However, I'm assuming the counterargument to this will be that the people don't matter and that, in the end, people get what they want through violence. I tend to disagree, and the most prominent example of this is the war that's been going on in the Middle East these past years.
What has violence brought, if I may ask, that has been positive in recent years? And I get that no one is arguing that violence is good, but a lot of people are arguing that violence is the answer. The answer to what? If you didn't notice, violence bred more violence. Watch what's going on in the entire world as an effect of the abuse that's been going on in the Middle East, you're not safe anywhere anymore. Constant bomb threats, terrorism and just overall mayhem when it comes to personal security.
If violence was the answer, then there would have been a winning side already...
