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.
Looking at table 70, it looks like resisting with a weapon by threatening or attacking is less likely to result in injury than other methods. It would be more useful if they gave us the data by type of weapon used to resist.
I think Gary Kleck did a study that the National Academies mentioned in their book Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.
See table 15.2
From that it seems like if you fight back with a gun, you are less likely to be injured than in any other scenario including compliance.
Edit to add from the National Academies:
While the literature on self-defense has been preoccupied with the basic measurement questions, a handful of studies assess the efficacy of defensive gun use.10 Using data from the NCVS, Kleck (2001b) compares the probability of injury and crime by different defensive actions. The results, summarized in Table 5-2, suggest that respondents who use firearms are less likely to be injured and lose property than those using other modes of protection. For example, while the overall rate of injury in robbery is 30.2, only 12.8 percent of those using a firearm for self-protection were injured. Ziegenhagen and Brosnan (1985) draw similar conclusions about the efficacy of armed (although not firearm) resistance when summarizing 13 city victim surveys. Using a multivariate regression analysis, Kleck and DeLone (1993) confirm these basic cross-tabular findings.11 Defense with a firearm is associated with fewer completed robberies and less injury. Two forms of self-defense, namely using force without a weapon and trying to get help or attract attention, are associated with higher injury rates than taking no self-protective action.