If you shoot a 9mm, get a gun that holds the maximum number of rounds. If you start shooting at someone, you'll need lots and lots of rounds. I personally don't get the hype about 9mm. Compact size and high capacity magazines bedamned, I want a round with sufficient authority to stop and assailant before he can shoot back. The military chose it because it's NATO approved, (I say screw NATO), a soldier can carry more rounds because they weigh less, and even whimps can handle the recoil. They chose the .223 for the same reasons.
For military applications, I agree to some extent. An enemy soldier shot with a 9mm or .223 is a wounded enemy that stops fighting and requires other enemy troops to look after him. That's not true on American streets, where evil drives the perpetrators, not politics.
Here at home, off the battlefield, I want a heavy strike that does not require multiple hits to stop a person who has made himself a serious threat to me or mine. I'm in the minority with that opinion, I know. Most people have a mindset that if it's easy to carry, easy to handle, and they'll probably never need it anyway, a 9mm or 5-shot scandium is all they need. But wait until you DO need it. Then, whatever firearm you have, will be too small.
"A small gun is better than no gun, is the modern notion." I can't argue with that. I'm just saying that a .357, .44, or .45 are the calibers you will wish you carried if you ever need to shoot someone. If you truly intend to survive a gunfight, if you are actually serious about defending yourself, you won't carry a 9mm.
