I honestly don't read the story that TC215 linked and think, "Man, if only he'd had a Glock 19 and a reload." - I actually read it as, "Wow, bad tactics but good will to survive."
But I want to cut to the heart of the matter.
Is the issue whether or not that a person carries a J-Frame and thus chooses a less optimal shooting gun for random crime; or that the person who carries a J-Frame may not be able to address sentinel events as a first responder, because they chose a sub-par firearm for that purpose?
Because those two reasons are actually distinct reasons with distinct mindsets and fundamentally different ways of approaching a problem.
And as a result, the perspectives will be naturally at odds with one another.
Edit: I'm gonna cut this post to here. I don't think we're going to have a fruitful conversation getting into the nitty gritty. I just think we should recognize that folks may be approaching things from different mindsets and that folks have different legal and moral obligations with respect to their preparations. And we should recognize that those differences matter and not that one is superior to another, merely different.