Peacefulguns: when factoring 22 LR, such as you mention, you must recognize that ignition of 22 LR, because of its rimfire ignition system, is less reliable than centerfire priming as used in 25 and 32 Auto, and the larger cartridges.
Next, you must also realize that 22 LR is not as reliable in feeding as the rimless and semirimless cartridges. Failure to feed is a condition that is more frequently encountered.
Thirdly, "stopping power" is controversial and maybe a myth, rather than a proven property, however, if you look at the statistics provided by searching that link I provided above (there is a link to another page (
https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/why- ... estimated/) which examines the 22 LR as a defense round), you will note what this article observes here:
He found that about 60% of the time someone was shot with a .22, they were incapacitated after a single hit to the head or torso. That’s on par with the numbers from some much bigger and more powerful calibers. But about one third of the time, someone hit with a 22 was not immediately incapacitated no matter how many times they were shot. That’s roughly twice as many failures as calibers of .380 and up.
Fourthly, You're saying that you carry with the chamber empty. What are the chances that, when facing a threat, you will have both hands free to rack the slide and bring the gun to readiness and face the attack -- such as, if someone grabs one of your arms? Your gun, in such a case, could likely become a liability, rather than an aid to defend yourself. This is the reason why it is infinitely better to have a gun that is safe to carry loaded and ready to shoot, like a properly designed double action revolver, a single action semiautomatic with a safety that positively blocks firing, or a double action semiautomatic.
This whole business of self defense is never a sure thing. As our Brother Vikram points out, it is like carrying insurance on one's house -- it's not likely that your house will burn down, but if it did, would you be able to cope with the situation? Your house burning down isn't likely, but if it did, you would be ruined. So you carry insurance to mitigate against the possibility of loss.
Similarly, what is the likelihood of being attacked? This varies according to our individual circumstances. If attacked, will we be killed, injured, or just monetarily impacted? Can we accept such a situation, and are we willing to let someone else (e.g., law enforcement) be solely responsible for our safety and the safety of our loved ones, or will we accept that responsibility for our own safety ourselves?
OK, having accepted the responsibility to defend our own safety by carrying, we also realize that our attempt to do this can never be 100% assured. Carrying a gun, for instance, won't help if someone sneaks up behind us and clubs us in the head. Carrying the gun is not a magic talisman that wards off all evil.
Similarly, there are varying degrees to which any gun can stop an attacker. The quote and the link I provided above address a part of this. Acording to those statistics, larger calibers are more successful in stopping an attacker than 22 LR. By going with a 22 LR, you are accepting that statistically, you are less likely to stop an attacker than if you used a larger caliber.
Again, by not having a round in your chamber, you accept that your defense won''t apply in circumstances where both of your hands aren't free. You gun could still protect you in some attack situations, but not in others where you only need one hand to bring your gun to your defense.
So, there are all these possibilities, but like flipping a coin 100 times, each time you flip it, the chances are still 50-50, heads or tails. By your choice of carrying a certain cartridge or a certain carry method, you choose what level of protection you have. Is your attacker high on drugs, for instance? In such a case, you will want something more likely to end the threat. If you think that possibility to remote to bother with, then your choices become wider. Nothing will absolutely guarantee that the gun will end the threat. But your probabilities are increased by making certain choices. It's all about the risk you are willing to take in the circumstances in which you might find yourself.
Casual Shooter: Yes, there's always the "Mossad argument." The CIA is reported to have used High Standard 22s for the same purpose. But there is a huge difference between choosing a gun for an assassination and choosing one for self defense. The assassin knows what he will do, the victim of an attack very often does not know when he will be attacked, or how. The assassin generally plans his attack in a way where he controls the place, the range, or even whether the victim sees him or not. From the assassin's point of view, the choice of weapon may be a long range scoped sniper rifle or a little Beretta 22 semiautomatic, depending on his opportunities and capabilities.
The defender must choose a weapon with which he or she can respond to an unknown threat, which may take many forms. This is why the Mossad argument is not very helpful -- to say that because the Mossad uses a 22 Beretta, it is the best self defense weapon. This is like saying the best car to drive to work is a Formula 1 race car, because Lewis Hamilton has won many Grand Prix championships driving one. The circumstances and the entire situation is not the same, beyond there being a gun (or a car) under consideration for achieving a purpose.
It's a great deterrent nevertheless, specially in India where the gun calibre awareness is very limited. I myself own a Walther .22 PPK and LOVE it.