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.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Glenn's Show Prep