I seriously doubt it. People and businesses are robbed every day with no resistence and come out unscathed. The vast majority do not resist with force and are completely unharmed. According to the FBI from several years ago, about 87% of those that comply are unharmed. That leaves 13% that comply that still get harmed and those aren't great odds, I understand. So that would mean that resisting with force would have to result with people being unscathed more than 87% of the time. Given that so many people aren't armed and resist via physical contact with their aggressor, the likelihood for them getting harmed will be increased.
You could be right. The studies Kleck referenced* said otherwise. Do you have a study to quote, or are you just going to serve up some alphabet soup and expect me to take it at your word?
*Kleck references the following:
- PhilipJ. Cook, The Technology of Personal Violence, 14 CRIME &JUST.: ANN. REV. RES. 1, 57 (1991).
- MICHAEL J. HINDELANG, CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION IN EIGHT AMERICAN CITIES(1976);
- Gary Kleck, Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, 35 Soc. PROBS. 1 (1988);
- Gary Kleck & Miriam A. DeLone, Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery,9 J. QUANTITATIVE CRIMINOLOG5Y5 (1993);
- Eduard A. Ziegenhagen & Dolores Rosnan, Victim Responses to Robbery and Crime Control Policy, 23 CRIMINOLOGY 675 (1985).