I understand. Not trying to bust on you personally, and I hope you aren't taking it as such. I have just read so much on the caliber debate, it just amazes me when some folks credit the advances in bullet technology as making the 9mm leap to equivalence with everything else. Certainly those same advances offer benefits to the other calibers as well.
I also think that other comments sometimes brought up in the great "which is better" debate, like shot placement, magazine capacity, faster recoil recovery, less fatigue from heavy shooting, etc are all true and have merit, and are surely important, but they are not germane to the debate. They are reasons to select the caliber, and perhaps offer a better alternatives to self defense, battle, or target/competition shooting choices, but they have no influence on the actual performance of the cartridge itself. Hell, the choice of the gun has a great influence on the cartridge performance, and one cartridge may perform better than another in similar gun setups, but it still doesn't answer the debate on which cartridge is better.
I love talking/debating the merits of each of the cartridges. Perhaps there will never be an answer. I have and shoot the big 3... 9mm, .40, and the .45. I like them all. And they're all fun to shoot. When I conceal carry, it's a Glock 27 (.40 cal). For me, it's right between the other two in that it has some of the advantages of both the other two. But that's just me. There are good points for and against them all.
I say shoot what you like, and shoot it (them) as often as you can. Carry what you can shoot the best. I'd love to have this discussion in person. I enjoy guns and gun related topics very much, as most here do. I do hate typing on this damn phone with my fat fingers though.
Doc