Semi-Automatic Firearms should be illegal for Civilians - Exception is with permit

My opponent has suggested three very good and valid reasons to own semi-automatic firearms so I will simply jump right in. Hunting: 1) I'm not sure what my opponent means by "regular rifles" and my opponent has also not specified what kind of registration he believes should take place for such weapons, but in a way, they already are. Every gun sale that an FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer makes must be recorded in copies of form 4473 (the form every person purchasing from a licensed dealer must complete) and kept for at least 20 years following the purchase [1]. 2) I am also unsure as to what my opponent means by "formal dealers". I would have to assume that he means someone with a store or a person who makes a living out of selling guns. According to source [1] "A Federal Firearms License (FFL) is a license that enables an individual or a company to engage in a business pertaining to... the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms." So my opponent's suggestion that the NICS be used in all formal weapon purchases is redundant as formal gun dealers are legally required to have FFLs and therefore must already use the NICS. 3) My opponent's last point, that those deemed mentally dangerous should be prohibited from purchasing firearms, is interesting but seemingly irrelevant. If we are discussing the right to own specifically semi-automatic firearms, then how does preventing those with mental health issues come into play? Defense: 1) I would ask that my opponent stay on topic and refrain from conjuring hypothetical scenarios that aren't even entirely relevant. We are discussing whether or not semi-automatic weapons should be legal, however my opponent makes his entire case against the owning of firearms. My opponent suggests that firearms are much more deadly to family members than they are to anyone potentially threatening the family. I would ask that he provide statistics to accompany that assertion and (as it would be the only part that actually pertains to the debate topic) show how semi-automatic weapons are inherently more dangerous to the family members. 2) None of my opponent's points in this section were about the legality of specifically semi-automatic weapons and were instead anti-gun in general, thereby making it irrelevant in this debate. Collecting: 1) My opponent's "simple answer" is in fact not so simple. Can a person with disabilities join the military? Is going to the museum the same as being able to own and operate a weapon? Additionally, this point once again ignores the debate topic itself and instead attacks a person's ability to have guns at all. 2) The quote my opponent provides centers around the General referring to "assault weapons". While some laws may use the term "assault weapon", it is not an actual type of gun and is entirely ambiguous. My points: 1) My opponent has disregarded the debate topic at hand which is specifically about the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, and has instead debated against the owning of firearms in general. 2) He has made no case for why semi-automatic firearms should be restricted for civilians over other firearms. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...