The point isn't whether the violence is possible or not, it is that violence can never establish consensus in a democratic way no matter how evil of a despot it is aimed at.

What matters is changing the bulk of public opinion, resorting to violence whether you believe it is necessary or not immediately distances people from listening to you who aren't already part of your group.

The way you build real power is by sticking to the simplicity of your values, I know people act like no one has any memory but actually I do think people notice when groups are consistent when others are hypocritical.

The polling in the US on a variety of topics shows it. Most people in the US in the 2010s didn't hate Bernie but also they thought he was kind of silly and beating a dead horse with his points he made in speeches. Nowadays most people in the US whether they like Bernie or not admit he was right on a whole lot of issues. Outside MAGA the change has been major and quicker than one might expect in polling about how the bulk of the US feels on topics like healthcare, social justice, housing and the environment (core leftist issues).

There is also broad organized political resistance around campaign finance reform in the US that stretches across the left-right spectrum, I think Bernie's approach to stumping on this issue in a broadly appealing way for years and years helped speed the growth of bipartisan support for campaign finance reform. A more "violent"/intimidation based approach would NOT have done that.

If leftists resort to unnecessary vindictive violence now that would just throw the policy goals of leftism into existential crisis.

I don't need to hurt people to get them to listen to me.

I am not saying don't practice self defense but understand the politics here.

He didn't shoot him, he denied him from not having bullets in his chest.