That is why I keep asking for the data so we can see exactly what it says as opposed to trying to analyze someone's vaguely worded characterization of the data.
There is no single source of data. There are dozens of sources of data, all of which measure different things at different times. Figuring out how they all work together and what trends they indicate is the issue.
If you know of "different studies" that support your argument then provide them all.
If you disagree with what I have said, please feel free to provide whatever evidence you think you need to support your disagreement. If you disagree with the conclusions I have posted, feel free to offer conclusions of your own. But if we are going to play the "please cite your sources" game here I'll play, provided it applies equally to everybody else and all the time. Failing in that, I feel no need to conduct research on behalf of another party.
Posting that I should "go look them up" is not reasonable
From your point, perhaps so. From my point, it is quite reasonable. Again, if we are going to hold everybody to the same standard of proof, I'll be glad to play. But unless we all play by the same rules I see no reason for me to do something that others do not have to do.
You brought up this alleged study saying it supported your argument that the fact I quoted based on Kleck's study was "horribly misleading".
No. I pointed out your statement, while factually correct, was horribly misleading, much like the "43 times" quote used by the antis. Then in another post I showed why I felt the statement was misleading, using the 2002 data to identify some of the problems with it. The studies (note that it is plural) showing higher rates and severity of injury are not in conflict with Kleck's study, they are a refinement of the information relating to a smaller subset. Thus while one bit of research looks at guns used in defense against ALL robbers, the other study looks at guns used in defense against robbers armed with guns. Then I give you a citation to support that statement I made, and you reject it out of hand because it doesn't meet your standards of specificity, in spite of the fact that it uses the language that is considered appropriate by the professionals in the field.
That means that the burden of proof (as to the existence of the study, its contents and its support of your argument) is on you.
Actually, if you want to use formal rules regarding burden of proof, I have provided a sourced citation from a qualified person in the field in support of what I have said, thus meeting my burden of proof. It is now incumbent upon you to either show why the source is not to be believed or provide a source of your own with equal or better qualifications in opposition.
Me? I'd just sit there, do my level best to ignore them, avoid eye contact, and continue eating those delicious white flour pancakes! As long as the BG's don't start frisking and robbing individual customers I wouldn't so much as blink an eye. 
