Alaska Looting!

What is the practical difference?

 

The state constitution vests ownership of those minerals in citizens of the state subject to a residency requirement and the state administers them in trust.
The state negotiates on behalf of the citizens when big oil companies etc wish to develop the minerals.


Production occurs on land they all own a joint interest in. Things are created. Payment is made not as a tax but to the actual owner. Payments are made based upon actual production like any other royalty. No production? No payout.

Do I need to illustrate how simple payments from taxes are not that?

 

So what is, race? Single parent homes? Lack of God? It’s somewhere in there if it’s not gun ownership and relaxed self defense laws.

 

It is really cold. I dont think I have heard of much looting in any cold area after natural disasters.

 

Lack of preparation for daily hardship. Alaskans live harder day to day than most.
They are also generally prepared for power outages and other service outages. On average they stock food regularly. Water as well. Ammunition. Clothing. Etc. Leads to less initial desperation.


Race etc are not the factors to look at

 

Alaskans tend to spend more time outdoors in the wild which means more guns. Alaska has issued 89,445 hunting licenses for a population of 739,795. Twelve percent of every man woman and child in Alaska has a hunting license.

Texas has a population of 28.3 million with 1.2 million hunting licenses. That is 4.2% of every man woman and child has a hunting license.

That means that a person in Alaska is almost three times as likely to have a hunting license as a person in Texas. If that does not convince you there is a difference, nothing will.

 

That's not true. 80% of gun related deaths in AK are suicide.

 

Except the people in Alaska.

 

Not according to Nancy Pelosi.....it's just crumbs.

 

Very few poor people loot in a crisis. They accept the charity, clothing, temporary shelters, and hot meals of the Salvation Army, Red Cross, churches, police, military and civil defense teams. The help is offered freely and voluntarily, and there is no vice in accepting that help.

There's something bad ass wrong, backwards, and anti-social about looters. Scum.

 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...nce-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

Yup lots of suicide in Alaska, and lots of violent crime, and lots of homicide.

 

Sure, and none of the looters in Ferguson or Baltimore are on food stamps?

 

There are no poor people in Alaska? No one that wishes they had more than the other person? A government stipend from the Oil revenue doesn't cover the unemployed person to live when given the added cost of living up in Alaska. Its not a cheaper place to live just because most of it is rural.

 

There are plenty of people in TX and LA who receive $2k a year in government subsidies and handouts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ingle-parents-welfare/?utm_term=.3d98230d30cf

 

The "well-armed" people in LA were shooting at rescue helicopters while they were looting flat screens, shoes and jerseys. I think you are on to something there. Maybe it has nothing to do with the government stipend or the well armed population, maybe it had something to do with stark contrast of the population and cultural stereotype that no one wants to talk about?

 

What does your examples have to do with the looting of shoes, TVs and jerseys in LA?

 

Only when you are talking "per capita" with a small citizenship. Lower the per capita standard and you will see AK rates go down while the places like Chicago and Detroit far exceed AK. Per capita is a horrible way to judge crime rates against other much more densely populated areas because the amount of people deludes the amount of crimes actually committed.

 

That still doesn't make it any different in real terms from it being a stipend paid by the government of Alaska to people living in Alaska.

 

Poverty seems to be the controlling factor.

 

That only proves Alaska is more rural than Texas is.

 

People who are so poor that $2,000 matters don't pay income taxes already.

 

I would love to see your statistics on this.

 

Rural people are more likely to actually know how to use a gun than someone in the city. I can go out my back door and target practice. People in the city have to go to a range or somewhere away from where they live.

Alaskans that know how to use guns are much more common than Texas and even more so than in Louisiana. Most of the hunters in Alaska are after big game like moose or caribou, not squirrels or rabbits which can be taken with twenty-twos. . With those numbers, most likely about one out of every three or four grown men in Alaska own guns and use them. Not good for a looter.

 

And there are ranges literally all over the place in Texas. I have half a dozen within 5 miles of my house.

 

In defense of Louisiana it may take twelve doves to fill a plate but rarely will you see a Louisianan country person waste meat.