Idropped in on the gun show at the Orangeville Fairgrounds Sunday of last week to take a few photos and chat with a few exhibitors.

I was greeted at the front by a woman who asked, in a pleasant and jocular manner, "are you pro-gun or anti-gun?"

Seeing where I was, I declared my undying devotion to firearms. "Right answer," she said with a laugh.

The whole exchange was obviously a joke, but one couldn't help but realize that it was not without its serious undertones. Few face a more severe public backlash than the handgun owner.

I should know, because I was once an advocate of the ban-the-handgun movement and would visibly recoil when somebody informed me that they owned one.

My reasoning was plain enough. Handguns are unlike rifles and shotguns, insofar as they are manufactured for one true purpose, and that is to shoot people. After all, sportsmen do nut go deer hunting with a .38.

Over the years, though, my viewpoint has been tempered.

The first opinion-altering event happened at the home of my brother-in-law, a historic museum curator and antique specialist. He had this collection of swords, which I approved of and admired.

Then came the disturbing revelation. We treat the sword with noble reverence and — in the case of such pig-stickers as Excalibur — a sense of mysticism. Yet, were swords forged to harvest wheat? Were they there to cut down trees for firewood and keep our loved ones warm?

No. Their sole purpose was to shred the innards and slice off the heads of our foes. In other words, if I was going to be anti handgun, I should be anti sword and I wasn't.

Then, over the years, I met a number of handgun owners and collectors, and I had to admit that I had never run into such a conscientious bunch.

I will use a friend of mine in Thunder Bay as an example. He kept his handgun in a massive safe that little short of a Howitzer blast could penetrate. He made his own bullets, but kept the fixings hidden in separate parts of the house.

As well, he was very secretive and would only reveal to a trusted few that he possessed such firearms. Further investigation found that he was not a paranoid exception to the rule. He was typical of the many who fully comprehend that their hobby has an element of danger.

For every scumbag who carries his concealed illegal pistol and guns down a person to assert his manhood, there are many responsible, decent folks who are unfortunately lumped into the same group as the criminals.

Finally, at that Sunday's gun show, I couldn't help but admire the craftsmanship and symmetry of a .22-calibre pearl-handled Colt.

So, why do we have this hot, lava-filled divide between anti-handgun and prohandgun forces? I can only conclude that extremism on both sides has made this a black-and-white issue with no grey areas.

On one side, like it or not, the National Rifle Association and its inordinate number of vocal nut jobs has come to be regarded as the voice of the gun owner.

The NRA, in my opinion, has overreached in its defence of a U.S. constitutional right to bear arms stemming from conditions in the 18th Century. Call me naive, but I'm convinced the British aren't going to attack again, anytime soon.

And I still remember a 60 Minutes segment from the 1980s, where the NRA was out in force to foil a local jurisdiction's efforts to ban a bullet that had the proven ability to pierce the body armour worn by police officers.

It was lunacy. The association was willing to jeopardize the lives of those sworn to protect society, just so it could ensure its warped American dream of a chicken in every pot and an M-16 in every closet.

On the other hand, you have the ardent anti-gun group who sees a handgun owner and almost automatically labels him an ultra-right, stogey-chomping redneck with the I.Q. of an acorn.

Yet, it's hardly a stretch to assume there are people that support gay marriage, are opposed to our involvement in Afghanistan and could still have a wellsecured handgun in their home.

Then there was the billion-dollar folly of the federal gun registry that tried to strengthen firearm restrictions that, while not perfect, are strong enough to make Canada far less prone to gun violence than the U.S. The program was costly and largely ineffective.

From a personal perspective, could I go on a hunting trip, gaze down the sites and blast a hole in Bambi? No. It just isn't in my nature.

But do I support responsible hunters who pay their fees, obey the rules and significantly contribute to the ecosystem's well being in doing so? Yes. It doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Gun violence is a real and major concern in this country and the answer includes tough sentences for offenders and those who provide illegal handguns, and continued cognizance of the horrific consequences of their actions. Nobody wants a pathological killer or a sociopathic profiteer on the street.

The average Canadian, for the most part, does not have the inclination to own a handgun. The average Canadian who does own one is respectful and responsible. Work together to come up with effective gun control measures, not against each other to promote ideologies.