No more sale of Semi-Automatic weaponry to the public

I thank my opponents for his responses. My opponent tries to prove how his argument is relevant. However, in this attempt he just displays how his understanding of the debate as a whole is not entirely correct. He focuses on that fact that I did not state "guns" in the title, therefore it can mean any weaponry. He is is putting emphasis on the wrong part of the debate title. The emphasis should be on "semi-automatic. " This is what this debate is centered on, and if one has an understanding about weaponry, one will know that "semi-automatic" typically refers to guns, therefore making this part of his argument wrong. In my opponents next argument, he tries to contradict my scenario about the person getting their hat stolen. He tries to make it irrelevant by pointing out that, that is not an act self-defense. However, in his first point he states, "It gives law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves from criminals, who by definition do not follow the law and would arm themselves even if it was against the law. " The scenario I made up was to point out the faults in this reasoning. The way I did this was; I created a scenario that followed the logic of my opponent's reason that was realistic and also exposed the holes in his reasoning. A common person reading that scenario would realize that it still abides by my opponent's reasoning, and is totally a supportive part of my argument. My opponent clearly realized this and tried to change what he was saying in the first argument by making it more beneficial to himself. This action does not help him now that I have pointed out his original thoughts. For my opponent's next point, he basically reinstates the same point about it being acceptable to fire upon a leader if they become non-beneficial to society. To counter this, I will clarify my last argument; I talked about how the leader's followers will become angry with this and then fire upon the ones who are in a non-supportive position of the leader. This is a point that my opponent fails to see the importance in. He does not realize, realistically, how firing upon a leader would be devastating to social society. Regardless of how unorthodox or (for lack of a better word) terrible a leader or president becomes, he/she will always have followers. There will always be people who support his/her work and will be willing to fight and kill to defend it. Lets say there is a divide of ideology and some people want to kill a leader and others want to defend him/her. This is undoubtedly a possible scenario. The ones who are not in support of the leader decide to kill him/her. This causes and uproar from the leader's followers. They then retaliate by shooting up some of these people. Then the non followers retaliate, and so on and so forth. If semi-automatic weapons are completely legal among the public, this situation would be impossible to take under control. Police or SWAT team teams (who actually need these kind of weapons for their job) would be outnumbered and killed as well. If semi-automatic weapons are not legal among the public, the police and SWAT teams should have a significantly easier time taking control of this situation due to their superior weapons. In my opponent's last argument, he completely misunderstands my point. He seems to think that I feel that if semi-automatic weapons are illegal there will not be murder. This is not what I was saying. The main point of that argument was that these weapons just give a murderer another easy option to kill. Why give them that? I am anticipating that my opponent will try to counter this with one of his past arguments; the point he made about not giving legal ownership to criminals. To stay one step ahead I will try to reinstate one of my past arguments that my opponent also seemed to not understand. My opponent seems to think that only people with criminal records already will commit murder. This is untrue. I do not think that it is debatable that someone without a record could commit murder. It is certainly possible for someone who has been innocent for his/her entire life to go out and kill someone with a semi-automatic weapon that they've had because they had been a non criminal until this point. As my last point in this debate, I would like to point out that I am not arguing for no gun ownership, I am just arguing for no ownership, among the general public, of semi-automatic weapons. It is FAR less beneficial to give typical civilians this kind of power than not. VOTE PRO! ! I would like to thank my opponent for his arguments, and apologize once more for not being back in time for round 3. This has been a good debate.