A Missouri man shot himself in his leg when he set down his backpack, which was carrying a handgun, on a rock at Emerald Lake in Rocky Mountain National Park/NPS
A hiker carrying a handgun in his pack shot himself at Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado when the gun discharged when he set the pack down on a rock at Emerald Lake.
The 70-year-old, from Missouri, took a bullet to a leg Sunday and received initial care from bystanders before rangers arrived and provided advanced medical care. The unidentified man "was carried out via a wheeled litter to the Bear Lake Trailhead, where he was taken by Estes Health Ambulance to a meadow in the Glacier Basin Campground" and flown by an air ambulance to the Medical Center of the Rockies in Estes Park.
The round did not exit the man's leg, a park release said Tuesday.
"There were numerous visitors in the Emerald Lake area when this incident occurred, the release added.
A Missouri man who shot himself in his leg when he set down his backpack, which was carrying a handgun, on a rock at Emerald Lake had to be airlifted out of the park to medical care/Courtesy Roger Wolfe via NPS
"It is the responsibility of visitors to understand and comply with all applicable state, local, and federal firearm laws before entering the park. Open carry of handguns and rifles, and transport of the same in vehicles, is permitted," the park staff said. "Concealed carry is allowed pursuant to a legal Colorado concealed carry permit and applicable state reciprocity laws. Federal law prohibits firearms in certain facilities (visitor centers, ranger stations, government offices); places that are marked with signs at all public entrances.
"Recreational target shooting or discharge of a firearm is not allowed in Rocky Mountain National Park. Firearms should not be considered a wildlife protection strategy. Bear spray and other safety precautions are the proven methods for preventing bear and other wildlife interactions."
No further information as to the man's condition was available.
Comments
Based on his age and home state, I would bet he's yet another Trumpster "capatilist" who benefited from "socialism" (NPS evacuation). WTH was he going to use the gun for? "Recreational target shooting or discharge of a firearm is not allowed in Rocky Mountain National Park. Firearms should not be considered a wildlife protection strategy. Bear spray and other safety precautions are the proven methods for preventing bear and other wildlife interactions."
Not true. Population estimates for mountain lions in Colorado range between 3000 and 7000.
There are so many screaming kids and loud out of shape overweight people from Missouri and Texas on this overly crowded trail that the chances of running into a mountain lion would be infinitesimal- if I was a lion I'd wanna be as far away from those people as possible !
He was probably more concerned with 2 legged predators rather than the wildlife. Still, an unloaded or inaccessible firearm is just an expensive paper weight.
My ex husband is a law enforcement office, but conceal carried years before that. He just couldn't manage to go anywhere without it. He hated flyin because he couldn't take it on boare, he hated theme park (they weren't allowed) only going a few times for the kiddo, and even then tried to walk in with it. It was almost like making him leave an arm behind if he couldn't take it. Many law enforcement officers (current or retire) don't go anywhere with out it. He was more unwilling to leave it due to anxiety with the publi. I agree he should have left it. The man reminds me of my ex. I don't miss those issues.
In the last 100 years cougars have killed 27 people In North America. In the past 20 years cougars killed five, none in Colorado. Bee stings kill about 60 a year, snake bites about 5. Accidental gun fatalities run about 500 a year, accidental gun injuries are over 11,000 per year. Carrying a gun to protect yourself from cougars makes about as much sense as trying to stab body lice with an ice pick. What we're seeing here is the result of a wildly successful marketing scheme on the part of the firearms industry. Like all consumer industries their goal is to convince you that you need something that you don't really need. If you have a gun in the house it's much more likely to kill or injure someone in the household than an intruder.
(Fatal injuries: National Vital Statistics System . Nonfatal firearm injury data were obtained from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System.)
But the vast majority of defense uses are outside the home so that statistic is malarky.
Not that I support this, but if you are going to carry a gun in the wilderness it is useless in your backpack and carrying without the safety on is moronic.