Quick — think fast. What do you do when your life is in danger? If someone else is threatening your life, do you have the right to end theirs? You do now. On July 20, the Self-Defense Act was signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

The package of bills protects the rights of people using deadly force against an aggressor. In other words, if you kill someone in the act of self defense, you are legally protected.

For law-abiding citizens, this may seem like a sound piece of legislation. In actuality, however, the act has the potential to promote violence.

Although the Self-Defense Act specifically attempts to protect the rights of people who are fighting back in self defense, it doesn't guarantee that people won't also attempt to use the law to protect themselves when resorting to violence when their lives aren't in danger.

The bill allows people to use deadly force without needing to retreat if a person believes they could be physically harmed, killed or raped. This is granted in any situation he or she has a legal right to be in — on the street, in the store or in the classroom, for example.

These guidelines are too vague and leave room for misinterpretation. The act attempts to be an umbrella solution for a large range of situations.

Whether you like it or not, there is a difference between the intentions of a burglar and those of a rapist.

How do we judge in which situations a life is really in danger?

Legal loopholes aside, the legislation seems unnecessary. Even when one's life is in danger, using "deadly force" should be a last resort.

In elementary school, we were taught to be the bigger person and simply walk away when faced with confrontation. With this new act, it seems as if these lessons are thrown out the window. In protecting violence, even against the bad guys, we are doing nothing to stop it. Because each case is unique, each case should be carefully examined and judged accordingly.

The act still raises questions. What prompted this legislation? Is there a large number of self-defense cases resulting in false accusations or undeserved consequences? Since we can't pinpoint the existing problem, it's hard to justify an act that may promote violence.

If, in a situation of self defense, the aggressor is killed, it should be obvious that the other person involved was only doing what was necessary to protect his or her life. There is no need to encourage violence. If there really is no other option, the line between self defense and murder should be pretty clear.