Holster and belt selection have a lot more to do with ease of carry than anything else. A glock 19, IMO, is a great size for carry. There are people on this forum who carry full sized pistols with flashlights and optics without an issue.Yes, no, maybe. I have yet to witness the phenomena of people ditching G19s for FN 5.7s in order to gain another 10 or so "sucky" rounds.
It is hard to argue against the advantage of capacity overall. However, as illustrated, the asset of capacity becomes less of an asset when the associated drawbacks come into play. 17+1 is an obvious advantage... unless/until the weapon is too clunky to carry, or only carries in a package the user is not as safe, confident, or competent. Another point is that people can use capacity as a crutch. I recall studies years back showing a marked decrease in police accuracy and a marked increase in rounds fired. I will leave correlation/causation up to the reader, but a significant distinction was an officer who had to make all 6 count with his revolver versus the officer who had more than twice that in his auto.
On the point of safety, if you aren't safe with 1 gun, you aren't safe with any gun. The basic rules of safety are a requirement for any type of firearm. A safety is irrelevant to watchin your muzzle, keeping your finger out of the trigger guard, and knowing what you are pointing your firearm at. Relying on a safety to be safe is laughable. You should be the reason a firearm in your possession is safe.
I would also say that a much more likely cause of an officer's dropping hit percentage is the combination of decreasing training budgets and lowering qualification standards.