Browse By

The Family Gun Safety Lesson of Christy Sheats

Five months ago, Christy Sheats of Fulshear, Texas bragged about her guns on Facebook. She wrote, “I have 10 guns. Obama wants eight of my guns. How many guns do I have? That’s right, I have 10 guns.”

Three months ago, Sheats wrote about her concerns about what might happen to her children if her guns were taken away from her. “It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semiautomatic weapons,” she said.

Crazy gun killer Christy Sheats

Yesterday, Christy Sheats took out a pistol and shot her own daughters, Taylor and Madison, with it. They both died.

When police arrived, Christy Sheats was still insisting on her right to bear arms. She refused to drop the gun that she had used to kill her daughters. So, police shot her dead.

It wasn’t Barack Obama, the ATF, criminals, or Muslim Terrorists who destroyed the Sheats family. Christy Sheats did that herself.

Will gun advocates now argue that the Sheats girls would have been safe from their mother, if only they had more guns in the house?

22 thoughts on “The Family Gun Safety Lesson of Christy Sheats”

  1. Dale Moore says:

    She posted a meme that had the quote about 10 guns. This is horrible as is all the gun violence in Chicago. Have you post about that?

  2. todd says:

    This was a deranged individual but, you can blame the gun if it makes you feel better.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Without the gun, could she have killed her two fully-grown daughters?

      Certainly, the guns in that house failed completely in the job that Shears claimed they were suited for: Keeping her family safe.

      1. Michael says:

        and since the gun rights nuts claim guns don’t kill people people kill people well then we need to separate some people from guns and the way to do this is stricter control all around
        even an idiot should be able to see this

    2. Jim Cook says:

      If the deranged individual didn’t have a gun, then her daughters wouldn’t be dead.

      1. Molly says:

        While having a gun did make it easier for Sheats to destroy her family in a matter of minutes, nothing is a given. How many times does an individual – once they are determined to kill – do so with a knife, a motor vehicle, suffocation, medication, etc.? In this case the fact that Mrs. Sheats had mental issues there never should have been a gun in the home to begin with. I’m not an advocate for guns but I do own them and am licensed to carry. It is my right to keep my guns which are all legally owned and registered and no government has the right to force me to turn them over when I , myself have committed no crime. However, like I said before Mrs. Sheats’ known mental problems are what should have been addressed at the time she bought said guns and had they been then most likely she would not have had access to same and those girls, while they could have have attacked by other means, could still be alive.

        1. Kim Ward says:

          “no government has the right to force me to turn them over” So where exactly do you get that someone wants you to turn over your guns? I read that everywhere and not once has anyone ever proposed it in this country.

        2. dppins says:

          It’s very difficult to kill multiple people with just a knife. With a common house hold items like a chair, baseball bat, or anything that can be held as a shield, it’s possible to defend against someone with a knife. Not so with a gun. A rifle bullet can pass through multiple walls in a home. Gun just make is so easy to kill someone because it’s designed explicitly for that. Modern armies have stopped using swords and knives as primary weapon because knives are too inferior as a weapon.

        3. Phil says:

          ” How many times does an individual – once they are determined to kill – do so with a knife, a motor vehicle, suffocation, medication, etc.? ”

          I think the statistics show they do it less often when they don’t have a gun. Yes, it still happens far too often, but when you have a gun, impulsive decisions quickly turn deadly. Suicide rates increase, crimes of passion increase, and a family meeting can end with a mother going back in to reload before shooting her daughter again in the back.

          Would she instead have used a car or a knife or medication? Perhaps. we will never know. But to answer your question of how often people use other means, if the statistics of that would show “less often than just using a gun” that would suggest it’s worth looking at.

          The argument itself suggests that while there are other means like stabbing and medication and cars, guns are used instead as the preferred method. I think it’s curious that people use an argument that suggests guns are way easier to kill people with, and think that’s evidence against gun control

        4. Tom says:

          but the gun makes it soooo easy, doesn’t it? that, you seem to acknowledge. and precisely why there should be a mental health qualification for gun ownership. relying on a prior declaration of mental incapacity isn’t enough, as the illness long precedes the diagnosis. any reasonable licensing system would require a proactive mental health check as a precursor to state-endorsed gun ownership.

          1. Anthony Cardon says:

            She didn’t have a license. She applied for one but was denied. Her gun was passed down to her by her grandfather. I do believe that you DON’T need a license to have a gun in your home (in Texas), you just can’t take it with you outside. This is where things gets tricky. If restricting licenses can’t stop people from being violent inside their own homes, what can you do? Since she didn’t even buy the gun, preventing her from buying one wouldn’t have prevented anything either. Maybe there should be a law that every gun, whether held in homes or concealed carry, must be registered.

      2. Michael says:

        exactly

    3. Michael says:

      yea i do and people like you who are in denial. how do you explain this one genius ?

    4. Michael says:

      todd you are a moron. the gun was the weapon used by the person obviously. separate guns from some people should do the trick or are you still using your pathetic argument

    5. Buboe says:

      No-one is blaming the gun Todd.
      We’re blaming the message that more guns makes you safer.
      That you need guns for protection.
      That the solution to guns in the hands of “deranged individuals” is more guns.
      This is what killed that poor woman’s daughters.

  3. Al Hopfmann says:

    When only government people and their approved friends can have guns liberty will disappear fast.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Do you have other speculative comments about possible future scenarios that are completely unconnected to any political proposals that are actually on the table?

      The police had been called to this household to deal with domestic disturbances multiple times in the past. Securing guns away from people who have proven to be volatile and violent is not at all the same thing as allowing only people in the government “and their approved friends” to have guns.

    2. Michael says:

      bull crap

  4. Charles Manning says:

    The full story remains to be told as to why this happened. But the lesson with regard to gun violence is clear. Private citizens obtain guns primarily for self-defense. They also hunt or shoot for fun, but the Second Amendment is about self-defense. Guns are designed to kill other humans, and guns these days, with capacity to fire multiple rounds in quick succession, can kill much more efficiently than the guns invented at the time the Second Amendment was written. Guns are inherently dangerous. So are motor vehicles, aircraft, boats, and many other inventions, but the primary purposes of those inventions are different from self-defense. When a private citizen becomes very angry, or is mentally deranged, putting a gun in his/her hands is like pouring gasoline on a fire. That’s obviously what happened at the Sheats household. Although the death toll from such incidents is much less than from other causes, such as cancer and heart disease, it seems reasonable that laws could be introduced to mitigate such gun violence. In this case, the husband probably could have anticipated the murders, and the shooting of his wife. The media say nothing about that, of course. There should be a law holding family members responsible for allowing guns to be available to persons like Christy Sheats. If the huband had known that he could be held responsible, he would have taken steps to keep guns out of Christy’s hands and in other ways prevent Christy from shooting anyone. There may be other family members or friends who also could bear some responsibility. Did someone loan a gun to Christy, or sell her one despite the possibility that she would have been ineligible to obtain a gun from a gun dealer? Then such persons should be held accountable. I think stiff fines, or misdemeanor convictions, would be beneficial. However, the NRA will never stand for such measures. So murders and collateral deaths like this are apparently going to continue to be the price we pay for honoring the Second Amendment.

    1. Vanessa says:

      Very well said sir.

  5. Steve Day says:

    The gun used by Christy Sheats to kill her daughters was a 5-shot .38cal revolver – a family heirloom, passed down from her Great-Grandfather… Hardly an “assault-weapon” that anti-gun mouthpieces like to demonize. Unless they conduct door-to-door raids and tear apart every home in the country to seize every single firearm, then not a single gun-law could have prevented this incident.

    The fact is, this woman was obsessed with alcohol (just read her Pinterest account), was mentally unstable and hateful towards her husband to the extent that she murdered her two daughters (described as “daddy’s girls” by friend of family) to “punish” him (her words).

    Police had been called to the home 14 times since 2012 (some for the home’s alarm system) including 3x suicide attempts – though police have not said who had attempted suicide.

    I wonder if SSRI or other Rx mind altering drugs were involved (yet again)? If they were, we will never hear about it, since Big Pharma has too much political influence and makes collossal amounts of money from such drugs – any such links in previous “random acts of violence” have always been brushed under the carpet (James Holmes is a perfect example of this, as is Adam Lanza – though the violent tendencies of Asperger’s syndrome cannot be ruled out in his case … “Hans Asperger” found “constant bottled-up rage”, violent outbursts and sadism in many of those in his original study of the syndrome named after him). Instead of taking a serious look at these drugs which are handed out like candy by doctors, they use “financial incentives” to persuade politicians to push an agenda of diversionary propaganda that blames the cause of violence on an inanimate object.

    1. Charles Manning says:

      “The gun used by Christy Sheats to kill her daughters was a 5-shot .38cal revolver – a family heirloom, passed down from her Great-Grandfather… Hardly an ‘assault-weapon’ that anti-gun mouthpieces like to demonize. Unless they conduct door-to-door raids and tear apart every home in the country to seize every single firearm, then not a single gun-law could have prevented this incident.”

      Sadly, our nation is so saturated with all kinds of guns that there’s no hope of stemming the flood by preventing people from buying and possessing guns who are suspected terrorists, mentally ill, children, intoxicated, convicted criminals, etc. But you should look at other measures than door-to-door raids and seizing every firearm. Look at what I said a couple of days ago. Those of us who don’t want unjustified gun violence, including murders, suicide, murder-suicide, armed robberies, etc., etc., need to believe that if we merely stare in awe when somebody gets a gun and shoots someone without justification, we’ll get zapped by the law, assuming we don’t get shot by shooter. The latest media stories have barely scratched the surface by relating how Sheats’ husband was present when the shooting started. If he had known that the law forbids you to just watch when someone gets a gun and goes on a rampage, chances are Christy Sheats wouldn’t have been able to do what she did. She might have been relegated to a knife or a hammer, and the death toll would have been less. Even Christy herself might have survived if the officers saw her holding a knife instead of a gun (I realize many who love guns believe we’re better off because she was killed; I don’t). It’s very realistic to think that our legal system could improve the mind-set of our population by causing people to take responsibility for keeping guns out the hands of those who shouldn’t touch them. The answer to a bad person with a gun isn’t a good person with a gun; it’s a good person who feels responsible for putting distance between a bad person and a gun. Eternal vigilance is a good way to describe the duty we all should feel about guns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!