important. >> do you think you have enough women at at&t? > very proudly, we have 90,000 women working there. 37% of our management is women. we have 4,000 patens that have gone to women. one of my fellow officers in the audience picked up her 125th paten two days ago. >> very impressed. [applause] we do things like work with organizations like girl scouts, and a lot of programs we're putting -- we're working on together. still is the as entrepreneur yull area. we were talk about that. companies like ours are going to more rely yents on external

innovators. he changed the way we did innovation. open platforms, a.p.i.'s and bringing so many innovators into these centers that we created. a lot of fast pitches and again, we found three times the speed in terms of getting to innovation. what we don't have is enough women going through the door. when you think about the kinds of solution we're creating and enough women coming through door that is a problem. so it is how do we also fill that pipeline in the entrepreneur yull state? > what do we need to do in the education system so by 2020 e're close to filling that gap in the graduates on what jobs will be on the market? >> it's one of the reasons why

i'm running for public advocate here in new york city. [applause] here in this city, 76% of kids in public high school don't have access to computers in school. in school. we have to close the technology gap that exists, we can't start to tackle this problem if we don't close the gap. two is we have to make computer science mandatory. [applause] that's what my mom said we have to live in the 21st century. >> exactly. >> women are 56% of the work force. we can't out innovate the rest of the world unless we produce more engineers, entrepreneurs, and programs. we have to get at the girls in the school. i realize that in the educators

that i talked to -- so part of that is they only have 1,500 computer science teachers in the entire country. >> we have 6,000 a.p. computer science classes that are not offered for a whole year. microsoft thinks about 2,000 of them qualify students to give them a leg up when they get to college. >> exactly. we have to make sure we're preparing -- we're providing support to our teachers so they can teach our children. there's a lot of structural changes we have to make in the education system and i think it is possible. >> i'm more optimistic than i was half an hour ago. we clearly have lots of work to do but we need to do in the audience is to make sure more sthires all four of these women and julia's are known so more

girls are inspired to be like them. please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> this documentary comes from lauren, holly graham in knoxville, tennessee. their message to the president looked at the conflict in the military east. >> the problem with war is something you should remember, you know where it starts but you don't know writ finishes up. ou don't know where it goes. you don't know what the other side is going to do in response. >> dear mr. president, iran is developing nuclear capabilities. >> i don't want iran to get nuclear weapons because i visit

israel every summer and my dad goes there to work. israel it is a concern for everyone that iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon's program, at least the capabilities to build a nuclear weapon. but there's preference among the israeli elite that the international community led by the united states and others would deal with this prop and an international problem. >> obviously, this not only affects her hearn family but would have worldwide repercussions. >> so it would be simple for the saudis if the iranians get a nuclear weapon for the saudis to get nuclear.

then you'll have a nuclear arms race. iran washington a nuclear on the- [unintelligible] other hand, attacking alone is extremely dangerous as well. it is unclear and most people are skeptical about how much damage it could do to the nuclear capabilities. they could attack the facilities and set them back but some estimate it would only set them back about a year or two. >> this is an issue and threat that the israelis have been thinking about for a long time. hey have spent a great deal of option to figure out how to disarm iran. >> israel would like to disarm

iranians before they are too much of a threat, specifically the u.s. however, they are looking at sanctions to cripple the economy without putting as many lives at stake. >> i think the most important thing that israelis are doing is sounding the alarm to the world about this. in a way that has led the united states and european allies, russia and chinese to look at this serious problem and sanctions that could be very severe to attempt the iranians that they are better off without nuclear weapons without trying to acquire them. >> the e.u. put an oil embargo in july. we have certified that every single one has significantly cut or ended their purchases of

iranian oil. we've been able to put unprecedented economic pressure on iran while minimizing the burdens on the rest of the world. >> the best option may not be perfect. but it is some kind of deal, a deal that would verifyably stop he nuclear arms program. but on the other hand, gives the iranians relief from the heavy sanctions they are facing. >> some people, including dream's prime minister netanyahu says the work you have done has done nothing to stop iran. >> for nearly a decade we've tried to stop iran with dip employee macy. that doesn't work. they use it as a means to

advance their nuclear program. >> the problem with using force on iran is the damage it would have on the economy and the loss of life from a war, especially a nuclear war. >> iran is a very large country. israel has been very -- it is very small but it has a large military capability, at least for a country of its side. so the conflict between the two countries, if it was full blown and it would likely involve other countries in the region. >> many people say that to prevent war we must take all possible efforts to stop iran diplomatically. .> i think it's essential winston churchill said that it

war [unintelligible] resortalways be the last and before that there needs to e a major diplomatic effort. to resolve the differences between the countries and to ave direct negotiations. if that is possible and war can be adverted. if it is not possible, it is not that we tried in every way to avoid the war. i think that's essential. >> so mr. president, this means that in order to protect our allies and people like her family the u.s. needs to make a decision on how it will respond to iran's threats and soon. >> the u.s. is facing that

option again. he u.s. will bring it from attacking unilaterally but it would like to avoid conflict. it is a difficult situation where you have to do two things at one. it has to credibly convey its resolve not to let nuclear weapon advance in iran. without the u.s. resolve and u.s. seriousness it won't stop them from doing it. >> on my annual visit to israel i visited the israeli parliament. >> our target is very clear respect, trust and that we need to make peace.

>> demration to all the winners in this year's student cam competition. to see more winning videos go to student cam.org. laws and forum on gun he second amendment. on "newsmakers" california congressman chairman of the armed services committee. he talks about the proposed defense budget and takes questions on north korea. >> how should the u.s. respond if they do another ballistic missiles test? -- n't want to second yes

the commander in chief is going to make the decision. the military will give him options. i'm not the president. i don't have that responsibility and i don't want to get out in front of any decisions that he might make. i do think and i've said this fore, not just on this instance, i think we have to be careful about setting red lines and moving them and moving them. >> right. >> that has happened in the past, not with just this administration but in the past. but when you do that you encourage people to move forward. i compare nations to individuals. i was just meeting with some of our top military leaders and i asked them if any of them had children. of course, they all have. i said did the children ever push you and they all do.

that's human nature. you push until finally you get stopped. that maybe an action that should be taken. remember when we didn't go take out iran? >> right. >> the israelis did. you know, sometimes it's best to take action. > "newsmakers" can house armed service committee chairman sh sunday 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. now for the annual leadership of the rockies retreat in colorado. a discussion about gun laws and the second amendment. among the speakers is a policemen who shot and killed a gunman at church five years ago. this is an hour and five minutes.

>> there are few topics that capture the national conversation with more ideas, thoughts and emotions than gun laws in this country. hime going introduce a panel that is going to discuss this issue. speaking on this topic allow me to introduce our speakers. i will read the introductions as we introduce them in order. mary katherine ham who has pocken here two years ago. editor at large he brings to our panel politics on gun control. you have seen her on the fox news channel taking on big names from the left, most recently, she made national headlines when

she had a heated debate about the politics and gun laws in this country. david copele is here. he's a research director and a society policy analysts in washington and a professor of advanced constitutional law at the university of denver's college of law. before joining the institute, he served as an assistant attorney general for the state of colorado. he's nationally recognized in his expertise in firearm arms policy. book of the amed year by the american society of criminology -- division of international criminology. ana resident of colorado and expert on gun policy he will bring an interesting resource

view point on the issue of gun control, from the point of view from a coloradan seeing all of these new laws being made. he's a research fellow in d.c. his interests conclude constitutional law and criminal law. his work appeared in several newspapers and law reviews. he has ties to the state of colorado. he holds a b.a. from the university of colorado at boulder. he is often the go-to expert from the washington media on policy. his background is a perfect fit to explain the laws being proposed at the national level today. gena is a police officer who here in killed a gunman

colorado springs in 2007. [applause] she engaged in a shootout inside the church and is credit it with saving countless lives that day. as a patrol officer for the colorado department of corrections. in january 2008 she met with former president george w. bush at the president's request. she wrote her first book of her experience entitled "the gunman and me." her experience brings a personal perspective to the policy. please help me welcome our panelists today. [applause] mary katherine, let's start with you. >> hello, everyone.

it's a pleasure to be in colorado. any time you need me just holler. i love it here. it's a pleasure to be on this panel with folks who know a lot more about this issue than i do with a bona fide hero. so it is exciting to be here with you guys as well. the toughest fire guy up against is ron williams. [laughter] ust kidding, juan. i did get into a fiery debate, it is about as close as i get on biting someone's head off on tv. he implied and you will recognize this strategy. we are friends in real life. he implied that i did not care about victims of gun violence because i happen to believe the second amendment is useful and, you know, pat of the constitution.

-- part of the constitution. useful to me as a woman if i would like to use it. he turns this into why don't you care about people who die in washington, d.c. by gun violence? i think on this particular -- ring this particular debate, post-newtown, post-aurora that gun advocates have gone done this that road and second amendment advocates have done a asking on repeating them you show me how this helps? ask me how this helps. if you ask him on piers morgan on cnn he crushed him because he made logical arguments. the fact is, doing something, which is say the assault weapons

prevent id not columbine when it is as piece of legislation. looking a the situation saying we must do something, this is something. let's do it. that is not sufficient. in fact, i would argue that when you look at chicago or washington, d.c. that enacting the same laws that have failed and do not protect the people that you want to protect that you're edging from sillyness into criminal negligence. you're disarming people, you're taking people's freedoms away and you're doing nothing to help the people you claim you want to help. don't tell me i don't care. you tell me what you're doing taking my rights away to not fix a problem. [applause] so i think turning that around

and doing it calmly and asserting i do care about these people. the proof of that is i would like to do something that works. i would like to examine, for instance, deeper social issues that work both in newtown, we a single isolated shooter or a gang war in chicago. i want to examine that and let's policy -- policies that work. it is emotional at times but keeping our heads about us and asserting that we're normal people like you and that it is a movement not j a lobby but a group of americans that are asserting our right. personalizing ourselves and not let the human beingsen on the

other side of the equation. i think the left can get in dangerous territory that you've seen with mr. salazar recently is when talking about self-defense for women. this is a plausible situation that many people can imagine. when you're going back to the constitution you're explaining the original rationale. maybe that does not reach everyone on the second amendment. but a lot of upper middle-class women who have been in threatening situations who have felt this way before will say that does make sense that i don't want to take that away from my fellow women. hearing democrats down play the threat of rape and want to take away those rights from women i think is very damaging to them and it is our job to make very clear that that is something they want to do. the second amendment community

has done a good job of inviting and welcoming women in. a percentage of women who own guns has gone from 13% to 23% in the last decade or so. that is impressive and that meens owning a gun is something they can relate to. you can't make it so spooky and scary. it also -- when they become part of the second amendment community and own a gun, they understand the huge of web of ws that already exist that hurts gun owners who are trying to do the right thing in good faith. one thing we can do is explain the giant web. the calls for common sense gun control survive because people who don't own guns don't know there are laws. they think it is the wild wild

west. i'm not trying to steal everybody's time here. the last point i want to make is n drafting in drafting a lot of this legislation they are doing in states, democrats are making some huge mistakes that we need to exploit on a national level. for instance, the publishing of the gun owners in new york made quite a splash and is a good teachable moment why we don't think registration of gun owners is a good idea. they will reveal themselves like they did in washington state where the legislation obliterated the fourth amendment for gun owners which says a sheriff can come into your house once a year without a warrant to make sure your gun is locked up properly. now they are going we don't know that was in there.

we of course never meant to do this. those kind of mistakes when they get too emotional and so excite had the politics have changed on this issue, which by the way, they have not, you can catch them in these moments and i think that works well for our side of the argument. >> thank you mary katharine. i'm excited to be here. went to work at the cato institute. i love coming back here because this is where my heart is. mary katharine had some excellent points. i get to do a lot of these things and usually i don't have as friendly an audience. i usually assume everyone thinks i'm crazy when i open my mouth because i'm a libertarian. one of the things i've realized

about gun control advocates is they are in in their heads, they are in their hearts hearts. and we should be in our hearts too. the simple fact is for advocates, what they feel owards decpwuns disgust. when you say we are going to put guns in schools to stop other ghuns schools, their immediate thought is contamination. and that is fine. but what really is a contaminant is when someone goes into a gun free zone which is like a diversity zone.

when someone goes into a victim zone and kills a bunch of kids. there is another thing that guides gun control advocates too which is the view of prohibition. i talk to a lot of crowds and i ask them two crowds, who is disgusted by guns and i get a lot of hands. and who think that is a civilized society would have guns in private hands and you get a lot of hand. that is a culture war which we are fighting a trust in government that the left has been growing over the years and a trust in the fact that people don't need the right to defend themselves and we can rely completely on the police and also we can rely on obama care and the public school system and all the things the government fails us in and taking away our ability for preferences. the talk is not like it used to be in the 1960's.

and i think there are a lot of people who say shot guns and hunting is okay. but they want to live in a star trek world where no guns are needed. it will never happen. there are three and a half million guns in this country there. is no magic button to take guns away. we are winning this debate on data unquestionably. things are off the table. the government's own data talks about how the assault weapons ban did nothing and they know that. i started watching the west wing, the fifth episode of the west wing they introduce an assault weapons ban and talk about how they know it will do nothing. but then they say it's a start. a start to what? gun st responsibly owned

in this country. about 3 43 people died of rifles in this country and 500 people died of blunt objects. it has to be discussed because it makes no sense otherwise. if you imagine a debate over swimming pools and if there were people disgusted over swimming pools which kill far more children than guns do you would have a culture war about swimming pools. on the other side they make people happy and they are fun and so it's worth the cost. they do not understand anyone who likes to use weapons for sporting reasons. it's like if you like dog fighting or bear baiting. there is no weight whatsoever. hunting, going to a firing range, having a gun at your house, that is no way. you say we weigh the value of

speaking for the speaker against the first amendment, there is no weight on this side. that's why this is a culture war. that's why it's difficult to fight on a national level. they are trying to win it through surruptitious means y. are children expelled or suspended for a week for using their hand like guns. there were shooting clubs in high schools until the late 1960's. can you imagine now the way they treat guns in the public school system? we used to have responsible fire ownership but we had a culture that was widespread of responsible fire ownership and it worked across blue states and red states. now it's pretty much centered in red states and it's very disturbing. the way of winning this war -- we will win this on the

national level by the way. the n.r. savement an amazing organization who believe in the right to self-defense and believe guns are not the problem, it's the people who shoot. another point i want to point out with jeanne on the panel. tell jeanne's story all the time. i think everyone needs to know her name and make her a household name. we need to make all the people who defended people over the years a household name and not glorify these killers. we are going to win this. possibly background checks but president obama needs votes from louisiana, arkansas and

north carolina, senators who are not going to vote against the responsible gun owners in their districts. so i'm optimistic about nothing passing on a national level. gun violence is bigger than mass t shootings in this country. it's created by a failed drug war, a failed public school stham leads people to avenue news for violence for success. and government policy that's been destroying communities in this country for years. all of those things -- one of the best solutions to end personal violence is the sense of shame have you in your community. that's where the debate should be have over the problem of gun violence in this country. we should realize the tragic situations like newtown could be stopped tomorrow. the problem is it's not worth it because gun violence is

really a problem in our inner cities. thank you. >> i have a little more of a progovernment view than perhaps some folks because as an attorney at the u.s. supreme court and the federal circuit courts of appeal i represent law enforcement organizations. i represented the sheriff's of colorado in the colorado supreme court in the case of university of colorado's illegal attempt to carry licensed carry on campus. i've represented in many courts the two major police training organizations in the united states, the international law enforcement educate tors and training association and the international association of law enforcement fimplees instructors and a number of other organizations such as the fraternal order of police and

on and on. and sadly my clients have been on the losing inside colorado this week. all 62 elected sheriff's in the state of colorado, which includes democrats and republicans unanimously asked our state legislature don't pass something this year. don't do things in a rush. if you want to do anything, let's have study and bring people together and talk about things. and further the particular proposals the sheriff's said are all bad ideas. well the sheriff's got ignored in the legislature. the legislature rushed things through. the bills were introduced toward the end of one week, had the hear tgs next week and were moved as fast as possible on to the floor of the house for second and third reading. because what is going on in colorado is not an inding nouse

gun control movement. what is going on is colorado as the pawn of the obama biden and bloomberg plan. e biden called waivering democratic legislators on the floor of the house and told them don't worry, you can vote against your district, you can do whatever you want. because next time you are up for election, we have loads of campaign cash for you. and maybe he's right because michael bloomberg personally has more money than the entire national rifle association and probably more than the entire firearms industry in this country. and he can drop unlimited sums into whatever race he wants to. the bill that passed in colorado are not colorado only bills. they are drafted by michael bloomberg's people. they are lob bid in colorado by

michael bloomberg's contract lobbyist, they are the national del for what president obama and mr. bloomberg are going to try to push in congress. so let me -- and yet, if they were actually interested in saving lives, we know none of these bills will work. how do we know that? because eric holder's department of justice, the research arm of that is called the national institute of justice. in early january the national institute of justice did a report on various gun control proposals. that report was understandably kept secret from the american people but it's been leaked and it's available. here is what the national institute of justice said. and again, this is the research arm of the united states department of justice. that first the ban on so-called assault weapons which many of

you know are only different in superficial characteristics on a where the grip is gun and whether the stock can be adjusted, the national institute of justice said this does nothing, these guns are rarely used in crime. there is no noint doing this and of course this con firms by tudy that was done researchers, not one of the top progun cabinet officers in history to conduct a study in 2004 for fine sign the ban. on so-called assault weapons and on magazines and that report issued with preliminary reports over the years and a final report in 2004 said that ban accomplished nothing. no lives were saved.

it didn't change how many shots were fired in confrontations or anything else. they could find after ten years no benefits from the laws. and yet president obama after giving that very good speech at sandy hook in newtown connecticut on the sunday after the murders said we have to change. it unaccept to believe continue like this and i certainly agree with him about that. what do you have? something if we repeat it, maybe sometime after ten years will start to do some good. that's a hypothetical. but we can know it won't do any good for ten years. and that is not acceptable. that's the wrong approach. that's a political approach whose purpose is to divide suburban women from the republican party. that is the metta strategy of what is going on here and it's

not about saving the lives of anyone, especially not saving the lives of school children. on magazines, the national institute of justice said this would do some good if you could confiscate all the supply of existing magazines. well, that's tens of millions and that will among other things endanger the lives of the law enforcement officers who would be in charge of having to carry out what could only work if it was done through house to house searches and confiscation. an then on universal background checks. very popular idea when you say it as a three-word title. but not effective when you look into how it would orpte. they said there is no way this can be enforced unless we have universal gun registration. we know how universal gun

registration works because our neighbor, canada tried it. it cost hundreds times more than the promise made about the expenses of it. it was a complete fiasco. there was massive disoh beans by the people who tend to be more obedient than the americans. it was repealed last year by canada's parliament. how about the universal background check, so-called ill, that passed colorado on monday? well, people think they like it because they say some guy meets somebody else via craig's list and they sell a gun and it's a transaction between strangers, should there be a background check on that? a lot of people say yes. but this bill is far, far more than that. it is an instrument for the december trux of the lawful

ownership and use of firearms. let me give you examples. there are very limited exceptions about which when a person can give -- not sell, but just temporarily hand over for a few minutes a gun to another person. one is if you are at a target shooting range. another is if you are out in the field while hunting, you can do that. let me tell you some times when you can't. i'm an n.r.a. certified firearms instructor for the handgun course and protection in the home. follow the n.r.a. crick column and they are aside from eing the oldest organization founded in 1971. if i'm going to follow that crick column for how to teach people about safe gun handling, one of the things we do in the

classroom, not at the range but in the early parts of instruction, in the classroom, i'll bring in some guns, absolutely no am in addition allowed in the classroom, not even my own. >> i will bring in guns and dummy am in addition and under my supervision the students practice loading and unloading the guns and pulling the trigger and those kind of things. getting that basic safe operation of the gun before you ever go out to a target range with live am in addition. under the bill that passed the legislature. under the bill written by michael bloomberg, that is a crime. every time i do that, when i take one of my guns and hand it to a student without having put that student through a background check that is a crime pun shall believe up to 18 months in jail in colorado which and when the student

wants to hand it back to me, we have to do another background check on me to get it back. nd both ways on that transaction it cost $20. that applies to every temporary transfer of a firearm during a safety class. there are exceptions supposedly -- by the way, in colorado where the check is done by the bureau of investigation, it's not an instant investigation. delays of hours have been standard for years. the delay now is is approximately three days or more and has sometimes been illegally up to nine days. under conditions like that you can't possibly run a gun safety class properly. there is another exception in the bill. what if somebody need a gun in an emergency, can they borrow

it from somebody? not really. the only conditions which you can temporarily give someone a firearm for self-defense is first of all, it has to be within the home of the person receiving it. so the potential victim can't go to a neighbors house and pick up the gun there. more importantly the standard it can be transferred is the same standard to shoot one? self-defense, when you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. >> a woman has a guy who is stalking her and keeps calling her on the phone and threatening her. and she goes to a friend and says can i borrow a gun for a few days until i can buy my own because it takes three days to buy one in colorado or more. but i don't know when this guy

is going to come over. it's saturday night. maybe he'll come, maybe he won't. maybe he'll come on sunday morning. under colorado law if she saw that person on the street somewhere, she couldn't just shoot him because even though he made threats he hasn't initiated an attack. because the threat hasn't risen to the level she would be justified to pull the trigger. she is by the law which isth legislature passed she is prohibited of obtaining a gun for her protection. why some say why doesn't she go to a store and buy the gun. maybe there is no store open and in colorado it takes three days to clear by which time she can be dead. of course this bill has a war on christmas. it's illegal for your

father-in-law to give you a gun for christmas. it's illegal for you to loan your gun to your sister. you can sell it to her but you can't loan it to her. it's illegal for a guy on his death bed to have his friends come around and give his guns to them. after he dies, he can dan: the gun can pass by the execution of his estate. but no transfers are allowed when he's live and he can actually see the friend while he's handing him to firearm. these aren't bugs in the law. these are features. michael bloomberg is not someone -- there are many people, including me, who believe you can have strong gun rights and reasonable gun controls. michael isn't in that category. he is a prohibition nist. he brags about how little gun

ownership there is no new york city which he wouldn't let the national fwaurd come into the ty to restore order to the looters after hurricane sandy. he is a true anti-gun extremist. another bill is this fee for background checks which results in $20 per transfer. and maybe that's not a big deal for somebody who is buying a $400 gun in a store. t when you expand somebody teaching boy scouts at a camp or myself teaching safety classes or a woman, it becomes a burden. we have so many things for which fees can be charged, filing an akneel a civil case and so many things.

but we ft exempt from those fees people who it would be a genuine hardship. somebody who might be buying a $110 gun at a pawnshop with a background check because that's all she can afford. they voted down for people below the poverty line, whether they are on food stamps or whatever, to exempt them from this poll tax on their perhaps temporary acquisition of a firearm. and then, of course, there is the ban where the current house undoes what the colorado house did in 2003 which is an act to strong law about the licensed people who pass a ten point pack ground check of over $100 to carry firearms in public places. the bill to outlaw licensed

carry on all college campuses was promoted by people who made remarks saying well, people talk about resisting rape. how do you know? you might make a mistake. maybe the guy you think is trying to rape you isn't and you shoot him. or some guy that puts his hand around your neck and is strangling you, they are actually an admirer. this is the view of the democratic caucus in the colorado house that people are general, including adult women on college campuses are too incompetent to be able to use firearms responsible for self-defense. there was one amendment to this bill that was defeated. and that was you want to out law in effect guns on college

campuses. let's do a study. let's have the state collect the data and report on whether assaults, rape, homicide, increases on college campuses after this was enacted and that was defeated as well. the sponsor of the campus gun ban said we shouldn't do that because there might be an abhor relation which might distort the data. i can tell what you the aberration is, virginia tech. that makes this a safe zone for mass murders and more violent criminal predators and the sponsors of this don't want the public to see the data and dangers that are going to result from out lawing self-defense on campuses. thank you very much. [applause]

>> it's a pleasure to be here and i'm grateful to have the invitation. they asked me today to share a little bit about what happened ve years ago december 9, 2007. and i have about ten minute soss i'm going to get right to the gist of the story. the gunman in my case had already killed people in colorado at this facility called youth with a mission. he had shot four young people, 24 year olds and he killed two of them. and then he escaped and went ome to sleep in his own bed in

englewood. and the next day was sunday, ecember 9 and i was -- i was a very well trained police officer. i was a volunteer on the security team at this new life church because it's such a big church, it's like 12,000 members. and i thought it would be fun to be part of the team. so we just wore regular plain clothes and they had asked me to be armed of course because of my training. and i wasn't going to go to a rch that day because i was brand new believer and i was actually on a three day fast. it was the third day of my fast and i was trying to see if god was going to give me an answer for direction in my life. should i stay in law enforcement or something else?

and i was certain i was going to hear from god about my future. so i absolutely said i'm not going to go to church today. i'm going to stay home. and i got up and i happened to look on the internet and i saw that there had been in thshoolting and i didn't know what youth with a mission was. i saw the words the christian facility and the gunman had not been app hended. and i just man, something told me i just got chills in the back of my neck. and something told me to get to new life church. and colorado springs is like 70 miles south of where the shooting was approximately. and so i had no way of knowing. i just had this strong gut

feeling. i had been three days without food. i wasn't delusional. it was just a strong feeling to get to the church. i called the director of our security team and said do did you hear about this shooting and he said yes. and i said i'm coming in. i'm in the shower thinking i might not be coming home today. that's how sure i was. i could be killed. and i wasn't afraid. it was just something that i had contemplated. so i lived very close to the church. and when a riveed, i had missed most of the first service and there is two services. and we had a lot of extra people that day because we had a guest speaker. lobby s out in the

area. the description of the suspect was very vague. it was a white male in his 20's. there was no height or weight or anything, possible beard. as a police officer, that's common. you just go with your gut. and so the first service is done with. there were extra colorado springs police there because of this potential gunman. and the second service comes and goes. i'm leaving out a lot of details because i only have eight minutes now. the rest is in my book. [applause] no, i'm not trying to be smart. i'm being very serious here.

so the second service, again very crowded. it was very cold that day. we were supposed to get a snowstorm but it didn't hit. it was just very cold out. and second service ends and people are mingling. usually they cleared out quickly but today they hung around for some reason. and the off duty colorado springs police were apparently done with their -- they thought it was okay to leave. i remember one standing next to me and he looked at his watch and said i'm out of here. and it was like 12: 45. and i looked around and said i'm staying. there were so many people here. there were 12,000 people still on campus. and another security team member said i'm staying too. once i got to the church i wasn't thinking the gunman was

going to show up but i was very vigilant and aware of everything, aware of my surroundings. aware of the strange feel in the church even. and i think most of the people in the church weren't even aware of this shooting. so everybody was happy go lucky and everything. the police all left and they were in uniform. they left in their squads. and that is what the gunman was waiting for. he had been waiting in his car in the parking lot for an hour because we can cell phone towers can peg your cell phone and find your location. so as soon as they left he made his move. smoke grenade some place. and people had made me aware of there is like a smoke gre knead

outside. i wasn't thinking at this time gunman. we have 12,000 members, there are lots of young people. but it was odd. and fast forwarding a little bit again, i was in the front lobby by the front doors and i heard a pop pop pop noise. and i immediately made my way to the east hallway which was just a few feet away. and the east hallway is approximately 100 meters long and about 30 feet wide. it's very large and it houses all the daycare and the adult special needs, preschoolers and teenage. it's got all the classrooms and everything. and the hallway was packed with people. the church was still packed with people. and then i hear these loud -- i

knew my ears just immediately became alert when i heard the pop pop noises but when i heard the loud thundering cracks of the high powered rifle, i took the gun out of the waistband of my jeans and i'm like where is he. i couldn't see because it was like the length even further than the back of this room and there were so many people running and screaming and shouting get down, he's got a gun. and one of the security team members behind me who is really tall was like there he is jeanne, he's coming in the doors now. so at the opposite end of where i stood the gunman had been shooting inside the church with his ar-15 which he had recalibrated so the bullets

were even more powerful. and i just without hesitation i just sprinted down the hallway toward him and everybody is running past me. and just all of a sudden no one was in that hallway which was a miracle. everybody found a place to hide. and so he's opening up the last set of these two glass doors and he had his ar-15 with a shoulder strap so he could open up the door and i stopped running and i'm walking. i'm like okay i think now would be a good time to take cover. so i had gotten pretty far up the hallway running and there was a hallway that was perpendicular to the east hallway that he was coming down. and i was going to wait for him to come just even with me and i was going to shoot him.

but it didn't feel right. i was like god just please be with me. and i just had seconds to come up with a good solid game plan. this was seconds. and i took about seven steps out and i shouted at him police officer drop your weapon. and he turns with his ar-15 and i fired five times rapidly and i knocked him down completely on his back. and i'm walking toward him quickly with my gunpointed at him and i'm warning him drop your weapon or i will kill you. i wanted him to drop his weapon and instead he sits up and shoots at me. so we are shooting at each other in the middle of the hallway which is another miracle that he didn't hit me.

and i hit him again. and he tried to then -- he couldn't stand up. he tried to get away which would have been fine if he would have given up. but he collapses completely on his back and his head is propped up. and i had seen -- he had planted explosives around the parking lot and i don't know wrells but i had seen grenades -- he had a weight bearing vest which is not a bullet proof vest. he had 30 round magazines for his gun and he had a backpack on him. so he had 1700 round on him and he had another thousand round in the trunk and an ak-47. he wasn't stopping at new life. he was going on and had maps to other locations and he had

money. when i saw that he was going to pull the pin of this grenade, if he would have done that, not only would everybody in those classrooms who were hiding have per risched so would i so i had to shoot him again. and i knew without question that i had just killed him. and it was interesting because somebody immediately runs up and he wasn't part of the team or anything, he just was screaming and he was just screaming. he goes that was the coolest thing i have ever seen. and he's like how did you do hat? it was insane because i was could having and there was gun powder and another security team member runs up.