The "Shoot First" debate (or "License to Murder," as it's also called) is really picking up in Michigan, and more and more voices are coming out against this dangerous legislation. The NRA wants to pass a bill that would remove all responsibility from anyone who pulls a gun, and they're doing it under the guise of self-defense.

The debate over Michigan's gun laws has intensified as a legislative committee heard testimony this week on a bill supporters say would give law-abiding people more self-defense rights in certain situations.

Gun control groups say the bills are reckless and could create a public safety hazard by fostering a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality.

The bills would establish a presumption of reasonable fear of death or injury when a law-abiding person uses force in certain circumstances. A threatened person would have no duty to retreat and would be able to meet force with force in situations such as a home invasion or, in certain situations, a carjacking.

While some self-defense rights already exist in the home, the legislation would extend them to other places if the person was not breaking the law and had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, supporters told the Senate Judiciary Committee. The protections could be invoked under certain circumstances if the person using defensive force was attacked in a place he or she had the right to be.

"What we want to do is see violence decrease," said Sen. Alan Cropsey, a DeWitt Republican who chairs the judiciary committee and sponsors the legislation. "We want to see people be able to protect themselves."

Here's the thing, Cropsey (nice name). People already are able to protect themselves. We already have self-defense laws on the books in America, and no American is sitting in jail right now because they chose to use lethal force to protect themselves. If this bill is only meant to do what you claim it is, it would just be solving a nonexistent problem.

But this bill does more than that. It doesn't just protect self-defense (something that's already protected), it would be a legal defense for almost any murder. Lawyers around the country are drooling at the prospect of a bill like this, that makes murder legal as long as the defendant can prove they "felt threatened." This bill doesn't decrease violence-- it just makes it legal.

A person who uses force as permitted in the legislation would get criminal and civil immunity, which could protect them against costly legal defenses.

Opponents say the legislation is vague and potentially could apply to all sorts of situations -- including disputes on the street or as a way to escape prosecution in gang-related violence. They say Michigan law already allows justifiable self-defense.

"We thought our Legislature was here to prevent crimes -- not allow them," Shikha Hamilton, a Michigan leader of the Million Mom March antigun violence group, said before Tuesday's hearing. "This is an outrageous bill."

And it's not just outrageous because it lets gun owners shoot first and ask questions later. This bill even protects murderers who use other weapons. In Florida, a man chased someone he was fighting with for two blocks before stabbing him in the back as he ran away. And yet, because they had been in a fistfight and he said he "felt threatened," his attorneys planned to use this law as a defense. And in Colorado, another man shot his attacker in the back as he was driving away, and walked out of the courthouse a free man.

This bill is wrong. Even if this was a concern-- even if people weren't already able to defend themselves with lethal force, this bill would go way over the line. As it is, this bill isn't just unnecessary-- it's dangerous and violent. It's literally a license to murder.