For a moment, I’d like to take the debate of gun rights from the hands of the trigger-happy, NRA rednecks and the drugged-out, let’s-protest-everything hippies, and put it into the hands of the average family with more than a gun locker and a VW van to protect.

Let’s start with the holiest sacrament of the NRA, the Second Amendment. Contrary to popular belief, the heart of the Second Amendment isn’t maintaining the people’s ability to usurp a tyrannical government. UW history professor Tracy McKenzie said the phrase, “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence was originally stated by John Locke as “the pursuit of property.” Although people having power over the government is essential to the Bill of Rights, it is my opinion that in the Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers were thinking more of the individual’s right to preserve his or her property and less of people as a whole being able to defend their human rights. In layman’s terms, gun rights are not about groups of psycho gun collectors living in bomb shelters and waiting for Big Brother. They are about property owners, mothers and fathers protecting their homes from thieves, those intending harm and the government itself.

The reason why the left tends to loathe guns so passionately is because it sees the government as responsible for keeping people safe. The idea is if we disarm citizens (along with all the criminals) and arm officers, then the government will finally be able to do its job productively, without citizens making mistakes or having access to guns in order to commit crimes.

The flaw in this thinking comes through most strongly with the failure of Australia’s attempted gun ban of 1997, when Australian lawmakers banned about 60 percent of all gun types. In addition to the ban, lawmakers instated mandatory licensing and registration of all guns, while not considering personal protection a valid reason for owning a gun. To implement this law, police officers were given the right to search houses and personal property without warrants — and you thought the Patriot Act abridged civil liberties.

Since the 1997 gun ban, few have claimed crime has decreased, but several reputable news sources insist on a rapid rise in crime by 1997. I found a consistent set of statistics that showed an increase of robberies by 44 percent, assaults by 8.6 percent and homicide by 3.2 percent. Although there is debate over the numbers, few are willing to say things improved from 1995 to 1999.

The explanation is simple. If the problem with private gun ownership is the use of these weapons in illegal activity, then how can the government expect those already committing crimes to suddenly decide to obey and turn in their guns? The only people who will hand over their guns are those who are already obeying the law. This situation only makes committing crimes less dangerous to the criminal. The flaw with the liberal approach to guns is that it doesn’t allow for a balance of personal protection and protection from the government. The government isn’t omnipresent, nor can it ever be. There has to be a balance, and increased gun laws will only hurt that delicate balance.

As American citizens, we’re guaranteed the privilege of being able to defend our property, ourselves and our families with guns. This isn’t for the sake of Nazi-fearing, trigger-happy anarchists, but for the average man against the average criminal. There needs to be a healthy balance between personal protection and civil intervention. Guns are here to stay; the only thing legislation determines is whether criminals are the only ones armed or if law-abiding citizens also have a fighting chance.

Reach columnist Celeste Flint at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.