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?
Well it seems you served up a name first, Kleck, but with no data and no context. With that said, the FBI report was something I saw on a documentary several years ago and your questioning of it is valid. So I will offer instead BJS statistics for 2006, see Table 68, Personal Crimes of Violence. It is the Percent of victimizations in which victims took self-protective measures, by type of crime and victim-offender relationship. All categories showing injury and non-injury indicate the victim was injured more often than not injured. In short, fighting back comes with some very real risks of injury that do result.
If you look to Tables 72 and 73, however, you will see that such measure were perceived to have helped the situation by the vast majority of the time. Of course, if you think you are going to be killed and anything you do that keeps you from being killed and you survive means you think your situation was likely improved by the act, but still, despite being injured more often than not, people felt there was an improvement.
Also see other years...