She's got a point but not as much of one as she might feel she does and she's missing the better approach.

The idea that a firearm is more likely to be taken and used against you, regardless of gender, isn't typically a widespread problem. I think she's envisioning a scenario where there's a physical interaction between someone and their attacker and the attacker being able to wrestle the gun away from them and use it. That's not wholly fantastical but it's an incredibly niche type of event.

On the other point of shooting someone who's physically attacking you and you being charged, that's actually a relatively coherent concern. There are a number of specific instances where women specifically have shot and injured or killed someone trying to physically harm them only then to be charged themselves with a crime and state/local laws can actually create a situation wherein you might be in more legal trouble if you defend yourself than the person attacking you will get in for the assault.

Legality is a valid concern when you're deciding if you want to carry a weapon of any kind.

The better point that she missed was the fact that the vast majority of violence against women is carried out by people who are physically known to the person and, theoretically, comfortable with. Random strangers attacking isn't unheard of but statistically it's much less common than intimate partner violence and being armed won't necessarily protect you from that.