Some situations it doesn't matter what gun you have, like getting ambushed by four individuals.
This is absolutely true. In the given scenario, once you're in a confined space with four aggressive criminals, several armed with firearms, what weapon you're carrying is not going to change the game by very much.
Once he stepped out of his car into their midst, he'd lost the "game," and his survival hinged 30% on
his social skills and 70% on
their intent and what passes for mercy.
If he had gone for a gun, with those odds, chances appear good that he'd have been killed or seriously wounded instead of injured but left alive. (Yes, he might have killed or wounded one of his attackers on his way down/out ... for whatever that's worth.)
The idea that an average Joe gun owner could step into a circle of four armed criminals who have the element of surprise, and intent to rob/injure/kill, and outdraw and outshoot them ALL, is absurd. "If only he'd had a ... (some kind of gun)," is barking up the wrong tree.
He survived. That means, from the point at which he exited his vehicle, to the point that the criminals departed the scene, he did exactly what he should have done.
...
Now, to make this into a real S&T discussion, let's explore ANYTHING that could have kept him from entering the situation (call it "the trap" or "the kill zone" maybe). Lights, awareness, better general security practices applied long in advance.
Remember, living through a shootout ISN'T as favorable a result as not having one to begin with. So, what do we learn from his misfortune?