Let's first look at your preamble to the question and then the question itself. You'll notice, whether it's deliberate or not, a mixing of terms. You talk about gun control and the registry interchangeably. You talk about it being unrestricted. It depends on what type of question you ask of victims' groups.
If you were to ask victims' groups, do you believe in gun control, they obviously all believe in gun control. I believe in gun control. I believe in effective gun control, and I listen to the victims who have indicated to me the best way of achieving an appropriate gun control system. But you're confusing--again, deliberately or not--the registry and gun control.
For example, I see gun control as including the reverse onus on bail applications when individuals are caught with an illegal firearm in downtown Surrey or Vancouver. The onus then is shifted onto them to demonstrate why they should get bail, as opposed to the crown doing it. That's a much more effective version of gun control than the registry itself. The fact that individuals who now smuggle firearms into the country are met with a much more serious penal sanction is a much more effective gun control measure than a registry that, again, does nothing to prevent the illegal acquisition of firearms, including those smuggled into the country, as many of them are, especially the hand guns.
I've listened very carefully and closely. I've worked with provincial governments. Your colleagues in the NDP government in Manitoba have clearly indicated that this is not an effective gun control measure. They oppose the long-gun registry and have specifically instructed their conservation officers not to enforce the registry, and have specifically instructed the RCMP in those ridings in that province that these are not effective mechanisms for focusing on the crime situations they're facing.