Are they? Remember, a successful violent "protest" is often just retroactively called by a different name, like "revolution" or "coup d'état", it's not as if they're fundamentally different things. How do you compare those to successful peaceful protests?
Mobs don't win wars, they merely destroy and the rest is left to fate, often with disastrous results(see Libya as an example).
Mobs can't sit at the negotiation table
Mobs can't agree to treaties and enforce them
Mobs can't form proper functioning and recognized government.
You seriously can't think of any counterexamples to that? Like maybe some French (contemporary and historical), German or Russian counterexamples?
People always forget that the Russian Revolution was followed by war between the Whites and the Reds.
It's not fallacious. It has worked in the past and continue to work even to this day. Peaceful protests are proven to work more than violence; when they are allowed in the first place. Violet uprisings rarely lead to positive change and mostly end up in either worse conditions or disaster.
Most Western governance are inheritors of violent revolutions of some sort, which people tend to be aware of but take for granted. The US has made it a point to elevate the right to bear arms as a natural right. The UK on the other hand arrest people for tweets. HK never had guns to begin with.