I agree with the training. But today's autos are of safe design and the ergonomics are better and they are chambered for better defensive cartridges. They are typically easier to learn to shoot.
You are probably correct in that the ergonomics of autos might be better than revolvers. This can be a personal preference sort of thing but in general I would agree that the grip of most autos fits many people better than the grip of a revolver. Also, because the axis of the bore is typically closer to the hand in an auto you may experience less muzzle rise in an auto compared to a revolver which can aid in rapidity of accurate fire.
I would never argue that autos are not safe. But I don't think that they are safer than revolvers. Specifically a revolver is easier to load and unload safely than an auto. Another way of saying this is, I believe that autos require more training to help the shooter operate them safely than revolvers.
As an example, there is one operation needed to unload a revolver, unlatch the cylinder and dump. The same operation confirms empty chambers. An auto requires removal of the magazine and removal of the round in the chamber. Many people forget to do the second! Removing the magazine seems to give novice users a false sense of security. They can see the bullets, the gun must be safe, right? No!
Autos being easier to learn to shoot? Maybe. Specifically the Glock and the other autos that use a striker firing system have a consistent trigger pull that is typically lighter than a revolver's double action trigger pull. These guns are "revolvers without the cylinders"! No safety levers, no decockers etc. to worry about. I would not agree that an auto is easier to learn to shoot properly and safely if we are talking about double action on the first shot, single action for shots after that. You have to pull hard to get the hammer to cock and then every shot after that needs only a light trigger pull. That takes time to get used to. These guns typically also require the mastery of a decocking lever or you have to learn to safely manipulate the trigger down on a loaded chamber. Not as simple as a revolver.
Also autos are prone to problems associated with limp wristing, slide interference (like when shooting with the gun supported by a barrier or cover when shooting behind cover or concealment) etc. Don't get me wrong, these are EXCELLENT guns, but more for those who are knowledgeable and willing to undergo the training needed to operate them properly. What is the analogous operation in a revolver to "Tap Rack Bang?" I don't think there is one because the action needed to bring a new round into battery on a revolver is just to pull the trigger again.
Autos are available in better defensive calibers? What is a better defensive caliber for most situations than the .357 magnum loaded with a 125 grain semi-jacketed hollowpoint? The .45 and the .40 S&W are both excellent with the right bullets. I wouldn't say that they are better than the .357. I wouldn't say that the .357 is better than the .40 or .45. I would classify them as being equal, with the right bullets and I would feel comfortable using any of them as a primary defensive handgun round.
Along with ergonomics the biggest advantage of autos over revolvers include ammunition capacity and ease of reloading. Full size autos come with 7-10 round magazines and there is no doubt that it is easier to hit the big hole with a big fresh magazine than to fumble six little cartridges individually into six chambers on a revolver!
