MeekandMild
October 20, 2003, 09:35 PM
I thought these 2 political analyses might interest the THR readers. Speaking personally, the past 30 years I've been seeing a trend of mentally and emotionally ill people to much more likely be products of the various nontraditional families than the traditional families. OTOH it seems the places I've visited which have the most gun laws appear to have as much or more crime as those with fewer laws. Perhaps we need to tax cohabitation and leave the guns alone?
Start article:
KIDS AT RISK
Civil marriages are increasing while church weddings are
declining. The question is: Which type of marriage is better?
The answer from family researchers: Whether couples tie the knot
in a courthouse or a church is less important than that they are
married while raising children.
What worries researchers who study family structures is the
growing trend of couples choosing to live together outside of
marriage while raising children. Divorce and out-of-wedlock
birth rates leveled off years ago, but families in which parents
cohabit are on a steady climb. More than 40 percent of all live-
in households in 2000 included a child under 18, up from 21
percent in 1987, according to the latest U.S. Census figures.
The negative effects of cohabitation documented by numerous
studies include:
o Three out of four children born to unmarried couples see
them split up before age 16, according to the National
Marriage Project, a research group based at Rutgers
University.
o The impact of growing up with a single parent is well
documented by research: Children are more likely to repeat
a grade, drop out of school, become sexually active and
exhibit anxiety.
o Live-in households tend to be less stable; a cohabiting
partner is three times as likely to suffer depression as a
married person and twice as likely to exhibit aggressive
behavior.
Some critics of these trends say lifestyle decisions are none of
the government's business. Others say too much emphasis is
placed on married couples with children when their share of the
population has dwindled to 25 percent of U.S. households.
Still, when the welfare of children is at risk, reminding adults
that their lifestyle decisions do matter is a worthwhile effort,
says USA Today.
Source: Editorial, "Trend to live together, not marry, puts kids
at risk," USA Today, October 20, 2003.
For text
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-19-our-view_x.htm
For more on Social Issues (Demographic Trends)
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/soc/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN OTHER NEWS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORE STUDY NEEDED ON GUN LAWS
A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun-control laws --
including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons -
- found no proof that such measures reduce firearm violence. The
review was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC says the report suggests that more study is needed, not
that gun laws don't work. It said the study was inclusive for
the following reasons:
o Several studies found that the number of particular types
of guns retrieved after a crime declined after those guns
were banned, but these studies did not assess whether
there was any impact on violence or crime rates.
o Bans often include "grandfather" provisions, allowing
ownership of an item if it was acquired before the ban,
complicating an assessment of causality.
o Evidence indicated that sales of firearms to be banned
might increase in the period before implementation of the
bans.
In summary, the reviewers found insufficient evidence to
determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed
for preventing violence.
Source: Study, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," October 3,
2003, Center for Disease Control.
For text
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
For more on Gun Control
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/
Start article:
KIDS AT RISK
Civil marriages are increasing while church weddings are
declining. The question is: Which type of marriage is better?
The answer from family researchers: Whether couples tie the knot
in a courthouse or a church is less important than that they are
married while raising children.
What worries researchers who study family structures is the
growing trend of couples choosing to live together outside of
marriage while raising children. Divorce and out-of-wedlock
birth rates leveled off years ago, but families in which parents
cohabit are on a steady climb. More than 40 percent of all live-
in households in 2000 included a child under 18, up from 21
percent in 1987, according to the latest U.S. Census figures.
The negative effects of cohabitation documented by numerous
studies include:
o Three out of four children born to unmarried couples see
them split up before age 16, according to the National
Marriage Project, a research group based at Rutgers
University.
o The impact of growing up with a single parent is well
documented by research: Children are more likely to repeat
a grade, drop out of school, become sexually active and
exhibit anxiety.
o Live-in households tend to be less stable; a cohabiting
partner is three times as likely to suffer depression as a
married person and twice as likely to exhibit aggressive
behavior.
Some critics of these trends say lifestyle decisions are none of
the government's business. Others say too much emphasis is
placed on married couples with children when their share of the
population has dwindled to 25 percent of U.S. households.
Still, when the welfare of children is at risk, reminding adults
that their lifestyle decisions do matter is a worthwhile effort,
says USA Today.
Source: Editorial, "Trend to live together, not marry, puts kids
at risk," USA Today, October 20, 2003.
For text
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-19-our-view_x.htm
For more on Social Issues (Demographic Trends)
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/soc/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN OTHER NEWS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORE STUDY NEEDED ON GUN LAWS
A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun-control laws --
including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons -
- found no proof that such measures reduce firearm violence. The
review was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC says the report suggests that more study is needed, not
that gun laws don't work. It said the study was inclusive for
the following reasons:
o Several studies found that the number of particular types
of guns retrieved after a crime declined after those guns
were banned, but these studies did not assess whether
there was any impact on violence or crime rates.
o Bans often include "grandfather" provisions, allowing
ownership of an item if it was acquired before the ban,
complicating an assessment of causality.
o Evidence indicated that sales of firearms to be banned
might increase in the period before implementation of the
bans.
In summary, the reviewers found insufficient evidence to
determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed
for preventing violence.
Source: Study, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," October 3,
2003, Center for Disease Control.
For text
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
For more on Gun Control
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/