Many Michigan residents could have peace of mind without fear of consequence. Two bills in the state Legislature would allow people who feel threatened in or outside their homes to use deadly force to defend themselves without facing criminal charges.

At first glance these bills look like self-defense laws, which already are in place. Under these laws, the defendant can claim self-defense when faced with criminal charges. The defendant must prove the aggressor was a threat and reasonable force was used.

The difference lies in the guarantee that people who kill an intruder or aggressor will not face criminal charges.

Are legislators senseless? Giving citizens the go-ahead to kill whomever they feel is threatening them to make a state full of vigilantes. A citizen given the right to kill is a one-person legal system. How do you prove a threat?

It's possible for a person to enter a house by mistake or without hostile intent. It's hard to ask the intent of the intruder if he or she is dead. The written bill was not clear on what constitutes a threat or what happens when an innocent person in such a circumstance is killed. Before these laws are voted on, there needs to be a clear outline of what a threat is and how it might be proven in a court case.

Criminals are still human beings and members of society. Legislators are devaluing human life if they pass this law. It infringes on civil and constitutional rights of the intruder, who should be tried by the legal system.

In cities and populated areas that have high crime rates, the bill might prove beneficial in protecting residents. But East Lansing is a city full of young adults, some of whom might get drunk from time to time and accidentally enter the wrong house. It's not worth the possibility of a mistake happening that leads to someone getting killed.

Among students, many live in the residence halls, where violent break-ins aren't as heavy a concern. They aren't in as much a risk as students living in houses, or residences of parents with children. These people need to take precautions to protect themselves, but remember that laws are already in place to protect them.

The extreme form of self-defense proposed by these laws might encourage more people to buy guns when there is no need.

There's a lot that could potentially go wrong if state lawmakers pass these bills - there seem to be more problems than benefits.

Legislators need to think carefully about the consequences that could arise and propose amendments to better define the laws. By giving citizens the opportunity to pull the trigger, the government is making criminals protected by law.