Then you need to do more research and expand your knowledge base, because there are plenty of them out there.
I realize most of the posts in this thread are done in jest, but amazingly enough even in 2018 there are still people who believe this stuff and can't be bothered to bring their level of understanding into the current century. So, in the interest of helping my fellow members make better-informed decisions on how to protect their lives, I'll play the role of Captain Buzzkill (again).
Fact: ALL handgun rounds suck at killing people. Magnum revolver rounds out of 4" or longer barrels can do a slightly better job, but not enough to offset the lower capacity/higher recoil & muzzle blast/increased difficulty in concealment.
Fact: there's not a lick of difference in terminal effectiveness between any of the major semi-auto handgun rounds, both in controlled testing and real-world shootings. The results are out there for anyone willing to vet their sources and do their homework.
Was there a time when choosing .45 (or .40) over 9mm was wise? Yes, but it ended 23 years ago when Speer introduced the Gold Dot bullet and was later followed by the Winchester Ranger/SXT and Federal HST. Either of those 3 rounds brings the 9mm's performance level up to equal that of the .40 or .45. Given equal bullet performance, why not choose the caliber that gives you more bullets in a platform that is easier to shoot quickly and accurately, and is also cheaper to shoot? Is there still a time today when choosing the .45 over the 9 makes more sense? Yes, if you're limited to only using FMJ ammo for some reason. In a situation like that, I'll take .45 ACP all day long. I'll always own .45's (primarily 1911's, my first and greatest handgun love), and if I had to get in a pistol fight with one I'd be OK with that. But if I had the choice I'd rather go in with a full-sized 9mm loaded with 147 gr +P HST's.