Here’s What Police Found in the Las Vegas Shooter’s Room and Car

October 03, 2017

WRITER

We still don’t know why Stephen Paddock decided to kill dozens of people by firing into a crowd at a Las Vegas music festival. Police haven’t yet pointed to a motive, and the horrifying event left his own family “dumbfounded.”

But we’re learning more about how terrifyingly overprepared the gunman was and how the situation could have been even worse. It’s possible he was trying to prepare a bomb based on what police discovered in his vehicle that was parked at the Mandalay Bay hotel.

Standing in for Glenn on today’s show, Doc and Kris talked about the list and covered what we know so far about the shooting.

23 weapons were stashed in the gunman’s room.

Two tripods were positioned at the hotel windows and described as a “sniper’s nest.”

Hundreds of rounds of ammunition were also at the ready.

10 suitcases were also in the room; police believe they were used to bring in the weapons.

Ammonium nitrate, which is used in bomb-making, was found in his car.

"We don’t know how far along he was in a bomb-making process," Doc said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: First an update on what happened yesterday. Fifty-nine people now dead. The death toll at 59. The number injured 527. Five hundred twenty-seven people injured. Fifty-nine people dead at the hands of 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, who began shooting Sunday night from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Hotel.

His brother said he was a millionaire and recently even won a $40,000 jackpot. The FBI said there's no apparent tie to international terrorism. Twenty-three guns were found inside the room, including at least one handgun. Some of the guns even had scopes. Thousands of rounds of ammunition still found there.

He had a camera mounted in the hotel room to record himself. Now, we've not heard reports if he actually recorded himself, if a video exists. Likely, we would never see if it is.

KRIS: I think that's a big fail. Not showing -- if there is a video out there, not showing that video is a big fail.

DOC: I think you're right.

KRIS: Just like they did not release the audio from the Pulse Nightclub, when he called. They show you just a little bit, but they don't actually show that he actually stayed on the line and you could hear back and forth.

DOC: Right. I think that actually helps make the case that this is a problem and we need to think this through and do some things.

KRIS: It does.

DOC: I don't think it's insensitive. But he did have a camera mounted in there.

Ammonium nitrate was found in his automobile. Ammonium nitrate is a component of some fertilizers. That's what this was, a fertilizer of ammonium nitrate. And that's also what was used partially to take down the federal building in Oklahoma City, at the hands of Tim McVeigh. It was ammonium nitrate fertilizer and also kerosene. We don't know how far along he was in a bomb-making process. I think it's fairly safe to say that if you shoot 600 people, that you probably -- if you had ammonium nitrate in your car, you probably were going to use it to create a bomb. It wasn't like, no, I just happened to have ammonium nitrate. It had nothing to do with that.

KRIS: I went to the store Lowe's.

DOC: On my way to kill people.

KRIS: I forgot to unload that up at the house.

DOC: The fertilizer, it should have been. I was going to garden tomorrow. I don't think that's what happened.

Inside his home in Mesquite, Nevada, about 80 miles from Las Vegas, they found another 18 firearms, several thousands rounds of ammunition, and more explosives.

His 62-year-old live-in girlfriend was in Asia at the time. Now, we had heard reports early on, Monday morning, that she was arrested, she was a person of interest, and that they had arrested her. That is not the case.

Law enforcement in Las Vegas says, if she returns to the United States, they, of course, will have some questions for her. But at this point, they say she was in Asia. We don't know if she had any knowledge of this. But she wasn't there when it happened. Officers, as they approached the hotel room to investigate what was going on, he opened fire on them. But these were Las Vegas police officers.

The officers that broke in and found him dead were S.W.A.T. officers. So it was a different team. So at first he did fire on them. He hit one officer in the leg. But then they backed off, waited for S.W.A.T. In the meantime, he killed himself. S.W.A.T. goes in and takes him down.

There was some confusion. And Kris and I all day yesterday afternoon could not understand why there were two windows out in the hotel.

Well, we know -- we knew that he was likely shooting out of them because it gave him an advantage. But was it two rooms? They were pretty far apart.

KRIS: Yeah, and one thing I told you, like, I don't want nobody from the FBI to search my computer, because it was three hours of searching floor plans. So I was -- Mandalay Bay floor plans. Thirty-second floor. Corner window.

DOC: Then followed up -- then different firearms and ammonium nitrate and Tim McVeigh. Yeah, we're on a bunch of radar screens today.

KRIS: Yeah, we triggered.

DOC: So we looked it up, and as it turns out, he had a suite that was at one end of the hotel, facing the north end of the strip. So if you were looking out his windows across diagonally at the venue that he fired upon, the window to the left -- again, looking out at the hotel looks north down the street. Then he had the window that was due east. The venue that he fired on would have been to the northeast of the building. The reason it was two buildings, it was either one giant suite with two bedrooms or a connecting room. Now, that's important because I had questions about, okay, if those are two separate rooms, which they even led with in some of the news, did he run down the hall? What was going on? How did --

KRIS: Yeah, then it goes back to, this is a 64-year-old man. Does he have the stamina to go back and forth?

DOC: To go back and forth. And what's going on? So they were at least connected. And he did set up -- they said he broke the glass of the windows, likely with a hammer-like device, which I don't know why he wouldn't just shoot through it, but okay. What is a hammer-like device, Kris?

KRIS: From what I'm thinking, you know those tactical hammers that police use when they're trying to break into a window? That's what I think.

But, you know, I want to give it to this guy. He was trying to be classy.

DOC: He didn't just through it. He wasn't a barbarian when he executed 59 people? Gotcha.

KRIS: No, no, no. He wanted to go out and do it the proper way.

DOC: Here's the bizarre and strange part of this: Still, we have no motive. What was his motive in this thing? It's really important. What was his motive?

While a lot of people are focusing on the method of murder, the guns. And melting down about the method. The how.

The why is much more important. The why is more important because that's how we stop future mass murderers like this. The how, you're never going to stop every way you can mass murder people. Take away all guns. What about the knives? Take away the knives. What about the golf clubs? Take away the golf clubs.

What about baseball bats? Take all of those away. What about heavy, blunt objects? What about -- what about rocks? What about your fists? You can pummel someone to death.

There are limitless ways you can murder, even on large scales. Remember, the most significant mass murders on American soil took place without guns.

9/11, it was box-cutters. Tim McVeigh, it was ammonium nitrate and kerosene. The attack on the school in Bathe, Michigan. The most deadly attack on a school in American history was a bomb. It was not guns. You can murder countless ways. So the how is not really as important as the why.

When you get the why, then you can start determining how we change it in the future. What makes somebody do something like this? Why do you do it?

This guy -- this dirtbag Stephen Paddock, does not fit any of the traditional profile. None of the obvious. What are the traditional profiles of a mass murderer like this?

KRIS: Loner.

DOC: Loner. Brooding Loner. Adam Lanza. Sandy Hook, right? The crazy, brooding loner. Everyone knew he had problems. Stole the gun from his mom.

KRIS: Crazy eyes.

DOC: Oh, crazy eyes. James Holmes in Aurora, right? He was a loner. And also had the crazy eyes. This guy is not a loner. He had a live-in girlfriend. He got along. He was social.

KRIS: He was a millionaire. You know, an alleged millionaire.

DOC: Okay. That brings up something else. A lot of these people, especially the ones that are radicalized, based on faith from the Middle East, the radical Muslims, are people that are radicalized partially because they are poor. They look at poverty and their own and they want to pretend -- why try to help everybody, it's not fair that some people -- what they really mean is, it's not fair that I don't have what other people have.

This guy may -- according to his brother -- was a millionaire. So he wasn't that. Young. That's another one. A lot of the Muslim terrorists, the extremist Muslims, they're young guys. Adam Lanza, James Holmes, young. This guy is 64.

KRIS: Yeah.

DOC: Sixty-four. That doesn't apply. Oh. Crazy. Certifiable -- no. Never been determined yet. A pilot's license. Which means he at least had a review of his mental state in order to get a pilot's license.

KRIS: Well, not just that, he was able to purchase guns from different salesmen. So how do you able -- if you're that crazy, how are you able to get different guns from different dealers?

DOC: The people who sold it to him, his family, his friends, anybody who knew him, nobody has come forth and said, "Oh, yeah. That guy was crazy."

KRIS: What about this one? Caring. He called his brother to check on his mom.

DOC: Check on his mom. How is mom doing? He doesn't fit any of the profiles. So what is going on? What happened?

I've come up with a couple of basic thoughts on this, as far as motive goes. That unless there's something we don't know -- remember the guy who shot up the tower in 1966 in Texas, in Austin. He had a tumor in his head, I think. Had been fairly normal. Wrote that even he didn't know why he was having these crazy thoughts --

KRIS: He started questioning himself.

DOC: Right. Outside of something like that or aliens or some grand conspiracy theory that he wasn't really responsible, the government did it, and just pinned it on him or something -- outside of that, likely the information we've gotten from his brother and everyone else is inaccurate. Maybe he had financial trouble. Oh, his brother said, no rabid political or religious viewpoint.

KRIS: Church.

DOC: Church, religion, none of those. Well, maybe his brother didn't know him as well. He was leading a double life or something. Maybe he had fallen on hard times financially.

Likely, some of the information we've gotten is not accurate.

I think he did it for political reasons. Purely, my speculation at this point. But we don't know why.

I want to get some of your calls on that. And tell me, what do you think it is? We'll speculate a little bit.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep