There are enough cases where civilians justifiably needed a standard capacity magazine in a handgun because of the immediate threats they faced; just as there are a number of cases where one round was all that was needed to save a life. There is no one-size-fits-all self defense scenario. The people who advocate the chipping away of our right to keep and bear arms have another agenda, and none of our facts will sway them. Nor will things be any safer if or when they are able to impose their wishes upon us.
Now in terms of the use of arms and home defense as depicted in this video, I see it as a lesson in training and preparedness. Even though the wife called 911, they didn't appear to relocate to a safer area of the house. Though the father grabbed his safely stored pistol, he didn't take an extra magazine(s) or a flash light. Even with 17 in mag and one in the spout, a defender can run out of ammo without stopping all of the threats. And whether you carry a single stack standard capacity pistol or a double stack standard capacity, or a revolver, you should always have a reload, and should train to be proficient not just with shot placement but with reloading, clearing any malfunctions, and close quarters tactics. Remember that some people who still favor the 1911 with a single stack seven-round magazine do not consider themselves outgunned.
If you're currently stuck in a state where they've restricted magazine capacity to seven or ten, you need to train and build skills with what you've got to work with even while you're fighting to change unconstitutional laws. I wish every law abiding American gun owner would strive to become more proficient with firearms than the bad guys they fear.
BTW - my reference to "standard" capacity is what the gun was designed for. Standard capacity for a Glock 17 or M&P 9 magazine is 17 rounds. Referring to a standard pistol magazine as a "high" capacity, unless its one of those relatively impractical 100 round drum types, is a misnomer, and feeds the fires of the anti-gunners.
