Like all things gun-related, it comes down to trade-offs. For my money, the .45 has a proven man-stopping track record (through multiple world wars no less) that the 9mm, despite being almost as old, has never developed. Also, that "very little" practical performance may make a difference in the moment.
Essentially it comes down to the old question. 9mm or .45: Which would you rather be shot with?
The obvious advantage to 9mm is capacity, but IMO if I need more than 11 shots of .45 I'm likely in WAY over my hand and am probably retreating. And in any case the 9mm capacity advantage must not be all that great, as a good chunk of US police departments have switched to the .40.
Not to bash the 9, and arguing over calibers 9 and above is largely pointless, as they will all readily kill the crap out of anyone. It's a question of which performance margins you prefer. Do you want marginally harder hitting rounds, or marginally more rounds?
9mm's only advantage is that in a double stack magazine you get amazing capacity. But as for the world wars: there's a story/joke I've heard told with regards to WWI, and the two calibers in comparison. Goes something like "A German closes in and gets into the trench with an American, and shoots the American with his 9mm. The American gets pissed off and caves the German's head in with his trench shovel and crawls off to have a limb amputated. An American gets into a trench with a German, and shoots the German with his .45."
In that gel test, look at the expansion results: you prove me right there as with that batch of gel 9mm and .45 get the same penetration depth; expansion of the .45 is CONSIDERABLY more. Sit there and think about that, and what that means in terms of defense.
I'll take my .45 1911 commander/officer with 7+1 rounds, and an extra 7 round magazine over 16 rounds of 9mm any day of the week. If 8 rounds cannot fix the problem, then I had better be retreating.
As for 10mm, .41 magnum and 10mm get roughly the same performance (I think .41 magnum performs slightly better) - and owning a .41 magnum and having a friend with a 10mm...that's insane. The 10mm case is smaller, but the performance of the round is amazing. I WILL own a 10mm gun one day. A semi-auto with some kick would make me happy - something to match my two revolvers. (as for other semi-autos with larger rounds, wow...the Desert Eagle is something that is unimpressive. Huge, unwieldy gun with a rotating bolt. Who thought this was a good idea?)
seriously caliber is too much a focus.
think capacity and carry and RELIABILITY!
a gun at home could be a gun you need. A jammed gun is one you don't.
imho the cz-p01 should be most people's choice. plus oc spray and a knife.
To me caliber matters. The only 9mm I will EVER own will be a BHP and even so I'd prefer a .40 S&W BHP. But your point on reliability is DEAD on. It should extract/eject RELIABLY. If it cannot, find the trash can. One of the advantages to a revolver: it just works. No extraction concerns. 6 rounds that JUST FIRE.
As for the CZ...plenty of reliable guns to be had. My Glock 21 never jammed. My Dan Wesson CCO has, at worst, not locked the slide back on an empty mag - and that's a mag failure. My two revolvers have consistently gone bang. Every time. My M1A has failed to feed on new magazines - once broken in they feed flawlessly every time. We'll see what happens with my M1 Garand, since I'm finishing with the stock finally and have yet to fire the gun. Also, picking up a 1903 Springfield (another type of gun that just works, really: a bolt action.)