I think most are missing the point here. First, most people out there are not "the most deadly shooters" and are lucky to hit the blue side of a red barn. Those who can hit the ten ring, good for you. My point is that for most people, the odds are stacked against them. Even with a proper caliber.
Sooooooooo my point is that the average and even above average person is at a distinct disadvantage with a .22. I am not arguing that a .22 will not shoot. It will push a hunk of lead down range. I just would rather it be a bigazz hunk of lead.
The .22 is a great little purse or glove box gun. If you wanted to shoot someone in the eye at close range, and I'm not saying that you could but it just is not a good defensive weapon of choice when there are so many other small sized big caliber guns out there. Not having the money isn't a good excuse because there are large caliber guns for the same money or a little bit more.
You'd better be a dam good shot with your tiny .22 because a drunk, crack addict, meth head will eat your .22 lead by the dozen and still advance close enough to plunge his butter knife into your ear. Great little show and scare guns but it is like throwing rocks at a rhino.
So when that hunk of lead reaches it's intended target, I, personally, would appreciate some damage being done. As a matter of fact, I would appreciate a situation stopping event. Short of that, I would be selling my none lethal, inadequate .22 squirrel gun and buying a proper handgun with a proper chambering. .45ACP would do nicely. The proper tool for the job at hand.
I'll play the devil's advocate and suggest that to a certain extent the caliber of firearm one is willing to carry is inversely proportional to one's confidence in shooting ability.
The most deadly shooters do not feel under-armed with a .22 long rifle handgun. And they are not.