Being that the subject heading of this thread is "Personal Protection," the handguns chosen for comparison, and their uses, should be noted.  And while I understand that the purpose of this video was not to critique the handguns themselves, but instead the effectiveness of their respective rounds, it is worthwhile to consider the primary intended use of these handguns.  Both the Beretta 92FS and the Ruger Secuity-Six are what I would consider full-sized handguns and not necessarily the best for purposes of concealed carry.  However, I own a 92FS and have carried it in a shoulder holster; it definitely can be done, but it does print, letting the discerned know you're carrying.  And while I do not own the Ruger Secuity-Six, I do have a N-frame, 6" .357 Mag--yes, a bit larger than the Ruger, but suffice it to say, both of these double-action-only pistols were intended to be hip-holstered weapons and not necessarily for concealed carry.  Again, I understand that that was not the purpose of the video. 

In nearly all instances, the ballistics of the .357 Mag will outperform that of 9mm, especially considering that the 9mm somewhat ceilings out (at least with what is widely available commercially) with 124gr projectiles, while the .357 Mag is widely available up to 158gr.  But both can be quite effective, depending on shot placement.  And that is another area not discussed in this video, but is nonetheless quite important given the two handguns chose for comparison.  First, the Ruger is double-action, meaning that before the shot will go off, pulling of the trigger first sets the hammer back, before falling to ultimately strike the primer.  Thus, and unless someone wants to "cowboy" it by setting the hammer back between each shot with either the thumb of the shooting hand, or the sweeping the opposite hand, it takes a bit more pulling on the trigger, and therefore requires more practice to accurately fire the Ruger.

The 92FS, while being a double-action on the first shot, will be single-action every shot thereafter (until the safety is set, which automatically drops the hammer).  This leads to a pistol that at least has very good controllability and accuracy in follow-up shots, especially when under pressure. 

To summarize, while the .357 Mag does have what most would consider superior ballistics compared to the 9mm, if one were to compare the two handguns used in the demonstration, what the 9mm round lacks in ballistics can be made up by the relatively easier-to-fire 92FS. 

But, with all things, YMMV.

The 10mm is under-appreciated.

I have several Glock 23's that I've used for conceal carry, in addition to a Beretta Nano.  But these are each striker-fired, and being that they do not have any manual safeties (I don't consider the trigger feature to be an active safety), I do not feel comfortable walking around with them in Condition 1, and being they are incapable of Condition 2, they are always in Condition 3.  I understand and appreciate the disadvantages of doing this, but at the same time, the potential risk of an A/D when carrying a Glock in Condition 1 weigh heavily on my mind.  In a game where there are no do-overs, in this particular instance, I choose to err on the side of caution.

I do not mind toting around the 92FS in Condition 2.  But it is a bit weighty, especially with 18 rounds.

I've also been trying to get used to carrying a 1911, and recently picked up a leather Cross Breed IWB holster.  Surprisingly, while generally having a larger frame, the single-stock design permits it to conceal nicely.  However, as with all belt-mounted holsters wherein a decent-sized belt is a must, my frame is not the best suited for them, and I am always having to adjust my pants. 

Wich gun is more apropiate to women?

Sort of depends if you expect to carry it on your person, or in a purse/bag.

Personally, I would suggest looking at a sub-compact in either 9mm or .380ACP, the latter being a smaller cartridge, but sometimes a bit more manageable for a woman.  But then again, my wife can handle a 1911 quite easily.

And while I know many others will frown upon this, do not forget to consider a small pistol in 22LR.  If you are not used to guns, and at a minimum need something to go bang, 22LR is essentially recoiless and can be shot by anyone from a complete novice to an experienced shooter.  

As with all things, YMMV.

My rule? Do not re-holster until the area is safe, then re-holster while visually confirming a safe re-holster. Always.

A significant number of stiker-fired A/D's occur not when re-holstering, but upon draw.  Such mistakes are compounded when under conditions of extreme stress.  It is therefore incuмbent upon users of striker-fired pistols to have a very good holster which, at a minimum, covers the trigger.  So this essentially rules out simply carrying a Condition 1 striker-fired pistol in a coat pocket or purse without it being holstered.    

Add to all of this... I live in a State that while (begrudgingly) allowing its citizens to protect itself with conceal/carry, puts a very heavy burden on the use of such force, and has no problem coming down on someone protecting themselves/family with the full force and resources of the State.  In short, where I live, if you find yourself in a situation where you do not have time to go from Condition 3 to Condition 1, the State will invariably come after you, regardless the outcome.    

As with everything else, YMMV; act in accordance with what you deem necessary.

My grandmother carries one of these in an ankle holster on each leg:

Agreed that Glocks should not be pocket pistols.